Discussion:
English Feudal Baronies (update)
(too old to reply)
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-04 12:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Since Mr. Cracroft-Brennan in a recent post in the thread on English
Feudal Baronies said he had not had time to visit my webpage on the
subject, I am posting the relevant part of that webpage (which has been
updated) here as a favour to him. Here it is:

English feudal baronies - a cover up

The prevalent view of English feudal baronies is that they no longer
exist. This view is probably best summarised by an extract from an
article on Scottish Feudal Baronies written by Hugh Peskett, Consultant
Editor for Scotland, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, which was
published in the 107th edition of Burke's Peerage, Baronetage &
Knightage, as follows:

'English and Irish Feudal Baronies

The existence of these has been suggested[!]. Feudal baronies are
baronies by tenure, i.e., by possession of the pertinent land. There
was in medieval England a class of barony by tenure, but this is
academic as it was ruled in the Fitzwalter case in 1670 that baronies
by tenure had been discontinued for many years and were not to be
revived, nor any right of succession based on them. In the Berkeley
Case in 1861, an attempt was made to claim a barony by tenure, but the
House of Lords ruled that whatever might have been the case in the
past, baronies by tenure no longer existed, and any which had existed
were converted into Baronies by Writ by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660.
There are also the three Reports of the Redesdale Committee in the
early 19th century that reach the same conclusion. It is probable that
the same applies to Ireland, by a similar Tenures Abolition Act; in any
event it would be difficult to augment a list of Irish peers by tenure
beyond the twelve barons by tenure summoned in 1489 and subsequent
years, and their heirs, who sat in the Irish House of Lords together
with the original three earls and other peers created by patent. No
others holding by tenure sat, and an alleged baron by tenure who never
sat in the Irish House of Lords would prima facie lack credibility.'

The Tenures Abolition Act of 1660

The Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 was designed to remove the onerous
burdens associated with certain forms of feudal tenure, such as
wardship. These onerous burdens were, in the main, attached to the
noble forms of tenure i.e. knight's service and grand sergeantry. Grand
sergeantry was the holding of land in return for the performance of a
service to the King, such as providing a cook for the coronation.
Almost any service performed directly for the King seems to have
constituted grand sergeantry. Petty sergeantry involved other lesser
forms of service. Note that a barony could be held by military service
only, by both military service and grand sergeantry or, I believe, by
grand sergeantry alone. I believe that it was also possible to hold a
barony by purely nominal service, such as a penny a year, if asked;
this was certainly the case in Scotland. The Act was actually an attack
on the prerogative of the Crown since it was the Crown which usually
benefited (financially) from these burdens - which is why the King
resisted the Act so vigourously.

Essentially, the Act abolished certain forms of feudal tenure and
converted them into another form of tenure, that is 'free and common
socage', ancestor of our modern tenure of 'freehold'. The forms of
tenure that were abolished were tenure by knight's service, tenure by
grand sergeantry and all tenures in capite, that is tenures held in
chief of the King. No mention is made in the Act of tenure by barony
but since baronies were held in capite, it would seem that tenure by
barony must have been abolished by the Act. However, since the tenures
that were abolished were converted into another form of tenure, that is
free and common socage, it would seem that these new tenures must still
have been held OF someone and that this person can only have been the
King. In other words, the Act says that all tenures in capite are
abolished but it actually just creates a whole new set of tenures in
capite. One thing, I believe, is certain, namely that the Act did not
create 'alloidal' tenures, that is tenures held of no superior.

Although tenure by barony was apparently abolished by the Act, section
11 states that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour,
feudal or other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in
the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or
sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'.
This means that even if tenure by barony was abolished, feudal baronial
titles, and any right to sit in the House of Lords arising, were
specifically preserved.

Although the Act preserves baronial titles, it does not expressly state
how they were to be preserved. The question is 'If baronial tenure is
abolished, how does a baron hold a barony? Is the barony still attached
to the land (i.e. feudal) or does it become a personal title?' My view
is as follows. When a barony was held by feudal tenure (i.e. attached
to the land) it passed in accordance with the limitations specified in
the charter granting the barony e.g. 'heirs and successors'. If there
was no limitation then it must have been the case that a baron could
dispose of his barony as he pleased (i.e. if there was no limitation
specified there was nothing to alienate FROM). A baron could alienate
his barony away from his 'heirs and successors', if this was the
specified limitation, with licence from the King but, importantly, he
could also alienate his barony away from his 'heirs and successors'
WITHOUT licence from the King, subject only to being liable to a fine.
Now, if the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 converted feudal titles into
personal titles (baronies by writ - as the judges in the Berkeley case
of 1861 ruled) then the barony could only descend to heirs general in
accordance with the normal rules associated with baronies by writ. In
addition, a barony by writ can fall into abeyance, whereas a feudal
barony cannot; it passes to the eldest daughter. It is clear, on this
basis, that the 'conversion' of feudal baronies into baronies by writ
would have represented a substantial restriction of the rights of
barons in relation to their powers of disposing of their baronies. We
therefore have, quite clearly, an Act which TAKES AWAY RIGHTS. This is
where a fundamental doctrine of English law comes into play, the
presumption against taking away rights. This doctrine states that a
person's rights cannot be taken away by statute except by express
language or necessary implication. So the question is 'Is there express
language in the Act which says that feudal titles were to be converted
into personal titles or is it a necessary consequence of the Act that
this should happen?' Well, there is no express statement in the Act to
this effect, so we are left asking whether the conversion of feudal
into personal titles was a necessary consequence of the Act. There is a
strong temptation to argue that since the Act abolished tenure by
barony, baronies could not be held by tenure as a result; in which case
they must have been converted into personal titles. This is wrong. The
fact is that the Act actually replaced tenure by barony with tenure by
free and common socage i.e. it just replaced one form of tenure with
another. So could a barony be held by free and common socage? The
answer is 'Yes'. The King had the right to grant a barony subject to
ANY feudal tenure he pleased, whether by knight's service, grant
sergeantry or honorary service (effectively no service) only. So, if
the King had the right to grant a barony to be held by free and common
socage then it was NOT a necessary consequence of the Act that feudal
titles should become personal titles. On this basis, the law will
assume that feudal baronies remained attached to the land and, as a
consequence of the Act, were held of the King by free and common
socage. The effect of the Act was therefore to abolish tenure by barony
but to leave feudal baronies as titles attached to land held directly
of the King by free and common socage and capable of being disposed of
as before the Act, except that the Act abolished fines for alienation.
In other words, feudal baronies remained feudal. The preservation by
the Act of the honorary services of grand sergeantry by tenure of free
and common socage proves, in my view, that baronial service could also
be preserved to be held by free and common socage. As with baronial
titles there is nothing in the Act which makes the honorary services of
grand sergeantry personal duties, so, as with baronial titles, they
were still attached to the land and passed with the ownership of it.

The Berkeley Case of 1861.

In the Berkeley Case of 1861, the claimant, Maurice Berkeley
(1788-1867), who was an illegitimate son of Frederick Berkeley
(1745-1810), 5th Earl of Berkeley, and who held the castle and estate
of Berkeley as tenant for life under a trust, claimed the right to a
seat in the House of Lords by virtue of holding the feudal Barony of
Berkeley by tenure, which was historically attached to Berkeley castle.

The Committee for Priveleges of the House of Lords found that the
claimant had not made out his claim and ruled, inter alia, a). that
section 11 of the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 (see above) 'has not
the effect of preserving such barony by tenure, if it ever existed' and
b). that a tenant for life or devisee of such hereditaments (property)
has no legal right to a seat in the House of Lords.
It is important to realise that when the House of Lords ruled that the
Tenures Abolition Act 'has not the effect of preserving such barony by
tenure, if it ever existed', they did not say that feudal baronial
titles themselves, or any right to a seat in the House of Lords
arising, no longer existed. They merely ruled that the barony by tenure
had been abolished and that since the claimant claimed a seat in the
House of Lords by virtue of holding a barony by tenure, his claim must
fail. Lord St. Leonards, one of the judges in the case, stated in his
judgement that 'The right to sit [in the House of Lords] is saved [by
section 11 of the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660], but it no longer
depends upon the tenure which is extinguished. The title of Honor was
left as a substantive personal right. The tenure was not saved in the
particular instance in order to save the title of Honor, but the title
of Honor was itself saved although the tenure was destroyed....There
is, indeed, a Barony of Berkeley, not depending on tenure still
existing.' (VIII, HLC, 118-119). So there we have it in black and
white. Lord St. Leonards stated later in his judgement that 'we are
bound to consider the Act of Charles 2 as having extinguished the
tenure under which the Petitioner seeks to establish his right to sit
in this House' which is true but potentially misleading, as we have
seen; tenure by barony was abolished but baronial titles were
preserved. It is quite clear, therefore, by Lord St. Leonards' own
admission, that feudal baronial titles and any right to sit in the
House of Lords arising from tenure by barony still existed in 1861 and
so, of course, continue to exist to this day, subject only to the
consequences of the House of Lords Act 1999.

As I state above, I disagree that any feudal baronies existing at that
time (1660) were converted into baronies by writ (i.e. personal titles)
since there is no express statement to that effect in the Act and it is
not a 'necessary implication' of the Act. In other words, my view is
that the Barony of Berkeley was still attached to the castle but it was
held by free and common socage rather than 'per baroniam' or 'by
barony'.

A number of arguments have been put forward in relation to the above as
follows:

Section 11 refers to baronies by writ only.

No, section 11 specifically refers to 'any title of honour, feudal or
other'.

Section 11 refers to existing members of the House of Lords only.

No, section 11 specifically refers to 'any title of honour, feudal or
other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in the Lords
House of Parliament'. There are no words in the Act restricting the
operation of section 11 to existing members of the House of Lords, who,
of course, held personal, not feudal, titles.

Note that Lord St. Leonards stated (VIII, HLC, 119) that 'The Act found
the Lords' House of Parliament filled with Peers sitting with
inheritable blood, and it effectually saved their right. This House has
consequently ever since (a period of two centuries), been constituted
of Peers claiming either under an original writ of summons or by
patent. No man has sat here under a simple right depending on the
acquisition of a baronial estate [This is, in fact, wrong, as proved by
another judge in the case, Lord Redesdale, who referred to the baronies
of Abergavenny and Berkeley (VIII, HLC, 153)].' What this means is not
that section 11 of the Act referred to existing peers only but that the
Act, by abolishing barony by tenure, ensured that people who had been
barons by tenure could not sit as barons by tenure but as barons
holding a personal title, in the same way as existing peers. This is
why Lord St. Leonards says the Act 'effectually saved their right' as
opposed to directly saving their right, which would have been the case
if section 11 had referred to existing peers.

Feudal baronial titles are not 'titles of honour'.

Lord St. Leonards specifically referred to feudal baronial titles as
titles of honour when he stated that 'the title of Honor was itself
saved although the tenure was destroyed'. In addition, the
Attorney-General, the Government's solicitor, quoted Lord Hale
referring to a 'feudal title of honour' (VIII, HLC, 34), with reference
to the Earldom of Arundel and the Barony of Berkeley. In addition,
authoritative sources, such as Sanders 'English Baronies' (p. viii)
refer to feudal baronies as honours. If you want an actual example,
there is, of course, the famous 'Honour of Clare'. It is also worth
asking the question as to why the government lawyers who drafted the
Tenures Abolition Act of 1660, who presumably knew what they were
talking about, should draft a clause referring to 'any title of honour,
feudal or other' if there was no such thing as a feudal title of
honour. Rather pointless I would have thought.

Feudal baronies may be honours but this does not mean that feudal
baronial titles are titles of honour.

See above.

It is illegal to sell titles of honour and since feudal baronies can be
sold they cannot be titles of honour.

This refers to the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act of 1925 which
states that 'If any person accepts (or gives, or agrees or proposes to
give) or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for
himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift , or
money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for
procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a
dignity or title or honour to any person, or otherwise in connection
with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour'. This actually
makes it illegal to pay for the grant (by the Crown - via the Prime
Mimister - it was Lloyd George's blatant selling of titles that led to
the Act) of a dignity or title of honour, which is what the Act was
designed to prevent, it says nothing about the sale of a title of
honour by one person to another. The Act says quite clearly 'to procure
the grant of a dignity or title or honour to any person'.

Modern peerages created by patent are, of course, personal dignities
that pass in accordance with the destination clause in the patent of
creation and peerages by writ pass to heirs general in accordance with
well-established (but incorrect) rules; they are both, by the very
nature, unsaleable.

Feudal baronies have 'fallen out of use'.

It was decided in the Fitzwalter case (actually not a legal case at all
but a 'decision' of the Privy Council) in 1670 that 'the nature of a
barony by tenure being discoursed, it was found to have been
discontinued for many ages, and not in being, and so not fit to be
revived'. As counsel for the claimant in the Berkeley Case said: 'In
law the resolution was wrong. Desuetude cannot determine a right. The
law as to wager of battle [see below] is an instance of that.' (VIII,
HLC, 56). This did not stop the Attorney-General saying 'If, therefore,
any such right as that now contended for ever had existed, it has been
lost by desuetude.' or some of the judges citing the 'decision' in the
Fitzwalter case. What they overlooked (steam-rollered through), in
spite of the fact that the point was specifically raised by counsel for
the claimant, is a fundamental doctrine in English law called the
'presumption against taking away rights' which basically means that the
rights of an individual (that is any right, including a right to a
title and a right to sit in the House of Lords) cannot be taken away by
statute except by express language or necessary implication (See Gadd's
'Peerage Law', ISCA Publishing Ltd, 1985, p.103). Now, if a right
can only be taken away, even by statute, by express language or
necessary implication, how can a right be lost through the mere passage
of time? Surely the answer is that it can't. The Tenures Abolition Act
of 1660 itself proves this point beyond any doubt, because it was
clearly necessary to pass an Act of Parliament (The Tenures Abolition
Act) to extinguish tenure by military service, even though the last
proper military summons in England took place in 1327 (according to
Sanders), some 333 years earlier; in short, the fact that tenure by
miltary service had fallen into disuse over 300 years earlier had not
affected its legal existence one jot. In this context , it is relevant
to consider Gadd's 'Peerage Law' (p. 110) quoting Lord Halsbury
in the Earldom of Norfolk case, namely: 'Our duty is to the best of
our ability to ascertain what the law is, and, having ascertained it,
to give effect to it; to alter it or even modify it is the function of
the Legislature, and not of your Lordships' House. No stronger
illustration of this principle can be given than when, so lately as
1818, the Court of King's Bench, with Lord Ellenborough presiding,
felt itself compelled to allow a claim to wager of battle [trial by
combat] in an appeal of murder, and but for the intervention of an Act
of Parliament (59 Geo. III, c.46), some of His Majesty's judges might
have had to preside over a single combat between the appellant and his
antagonist.' Thus the judges in that case felt compelled to enforce a
law that had fallen out of use at least 500 years earlier. It is also
worth noting that the House of Lords has recognised a number of
baronies by writ that had been in abeyance for hundreds of years,
including the Barony of Strabolgi (which was actually completely
non-existent), which had been in abeyance for 547 years.

No feudal barons have sat in the House of Lords for centuries.

This is really just the previous argument put in another way.

Decisions of the House of Lords are final, so there's no point in
discussing it.

Incorrect. Decisions of the House of Lords are not final and can be
overturned in a number of ways, including by the House of Lords itself
(which is not bound to follow its own precedents), by Parliament, by
other courts (e.g. European Court of Human Rights) and also by the
Crown itself in certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is
peerage cases, where, as I understand it, the House of Lords makes a
recommendation to the Sovereign, not a legal decision as such. In any
event, if the House of Lords makes a wrong decision (for whatever
reason) then this fact should be made clear. I would have thought that
this was obvious - but apparently not.

When Lord St. Leonards' said 'There is, indeed, a Barony of Berkeley,
not depending on tenure still existing' he was referring to the barony
of Berkeley created by writ of summons in 1295.

Incorrect. If you read Lord St. Leonards' judgement it is quite clear
that he is referring to the feudal barony of Berkeley. The existence of
the barony by writ was never in question, was actually held at this
time by another person (Thomas Berkeley, 14th baron by writ), was not
claimed by the claimant, could not be claimed by the claimant (since he
was illegitimate) and the existence of that barony was absolutely
irrelevant to the claim before the House. It would have made no
difference to the claim if the barony by writ had never existed
(although the existence of the barony by writ did confuse matters
somewhat). In fact, Lord St. Leonards even stated (VIII, HLC, 119) that
'if the petitioner were to establish his claim, there might be two
Barons of Berkeley sitting here at the same time, one a Baron by
tenure, and the other a Baron by writ of summons.'

Lord St. Leonards statements were only 'passing comments'.

No, his statements were part of his judgement.

Feudal baronies could only be alienated with licence. Alienation
without a licence did not permit a new owner to claim the dignity.

An interesting assertion (as far as I can see unsupported by statute or
by any major legal authority) but if this is the case then why didn't
the judges in the Berkeley case of 1861 simply dismiss the claim on the
basis that the claimant was an illegitimate son of the 5th Earl of
Berkeley and that the claimant's inheritance of the barony represented
an alienation (from the legal heir of the 5th Earl, the 6th Earl)
without licence? The fact that this argument was not put forward by the
Attorney-General (the Government's lawyer), who surely would have used
it if he could, would seem to indicate that it is without foundation.
In fact, the Attorney-General said 'It was an assumption made by the
claimant that there could not previously to the statute of Charles 2
[The Tenures Abolition Act of 1660], be any alienation without licence
from the Crown. Alienations might have been made upon ordinary fines. A
fine would have been payable, nothing more. There is no reason for
holding that lands created into a barony, did not partake of the
ordinary liberty of alienation incident to other lands, no reversion
being in the Crown'. In other words, the Attorney-General is
acknowledging that baronies could be alienated in the same way as other
lands held in chief of the King; that is they could be alienated with a
licence from the King or, if alienated without licence, by the payment
of a fine (I Ed. III, st. 2, c.12).

Holders of feudal baronies were required to do homage for them and if
they did not pay homage they could not hold a barony.

Another interesting assertion (also, as far as I can see, unsupported
by statute or by any major legal authority) but, again, if this is the
case then why didn't the judges in the Berkeley case of 1861 simply
dismiss the claim on the basis that the claimant (or presumably any
number of the previous holders of the barony) had not paid homage for
the barony (which, presumably, the King would not be obliged to
accept)? The fact that this argument was not put forward by the
Attorney-General (the Government's lawyer), who surely would have used
it if he could, would seem to indicate that it is without foundation.

Note: An act of homage was originally the central part of the process
whereby a vassal received a grant of land from a superior. In essence
this process consisted of a ceremony (in front of reputable witnesses
who could attest to it) where the vassal knelt before his superior (to
be), placed his hands between those of his superior and swore fealty to
him; in return the superior granted lands to be held by the vassal of
him and handed over a sod of earth and a stone to represent the lands
being granted. This ceremony was superceded at an early date by a
written charter which provided the security of physical evidence of the
grant, that is a piece of paper, and the act of homage became redundant
in legal terms.

I believe that it was possible to hold land by homage, which meant that
an act of homage was the service due from the lands (as opposed to,
say, knight's service). In other words, the act of homage was the
actual service due from the lands rather than a ceremony evidencing the
actual service due from the lands (e.g. knight's service). In such
cases, it would be logical that if the service (the act of homage) was
not performed then the land would be lost. So, if a barony was held by
the service of an act of homage, failure to perform that act of homage
could have led to forfeiture of the barony. Perhaps this is what has
caused confusion.

Broadly speaking, the same arguments apply to Irish feudal baronies
which were subject to a similar Act.

Graham Senior-Milne
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
2005-09-05 18:14:37 UTC
Permalink
I certainly don't have time to read and absorb this extremeley long
post this evening - I have to say these postings are very difficult to
read as they are so rambling. A few additional paragraphs and the use
of bullet points would improve them a lot. A short three or four
paragraph precis would help tremendously!

Peskett does seem to be saying that English and Irish feudal baronies
have been abolished, but I suspect that all the paragraphs following
are Mr Senior-Milne refuting this.

At a quick glance through the rest of the posting I see Mr
Senior-Milne mentions "socage". Socage was a form of feudal tenure -
the land was held in return for a money rent; although no knight
service was required, the tenant still had to do fealty to the
superior landlord. I am not sure at this stage what the connection is
with feudal baronies.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Since Mr. Cracroft-Brennan in a recent post in the thread on English
Feudal Baronies said he had not had time to visit my webpage on the
subject, I am posting the relevant part of that webpage (which has been
English feudal baronies - a cover up
The prevalent view of English feudal baronies is that they no longer
exist. This view is probably best summarised by an extract from an
article on Scottish Feudal Baronies written by Hugh Peskett, Consultant
Editor for Scotland, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, which was
published in the 107th edition of Burke's Peerage, Baronetage &
'English and Irish Feudal Baronies
The existence of these has been suggested[!]. Feudal baronies are
baronies by tenure, i.e., by possession of the pertinent land. There
was in medieval England a class of barony by tenure, but this is
academic as it was ruled in the Fitzwalter case in 1670 that baronies
by tenure had been discontinued for many years and were not to be
revived, nor any right of succession based on them. In the Berkeley
Case in 1861, an attempt was made to claim a barony by tenure, but the
House of Lords ruled that whatever might have been the case in the
past, baronies by tenure no longer existed, and any which had existed
were converted into Baronies by Writ by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660.
There are also the three Reports of the Redesdale Committee in the
early 19th century that reach the same conclusion. It is probable that
the same applies to Ireland, by a similar Tenures Abolition Act; in any
event it would be difficult to augment a list of Irish peers by tenure
beyond the twelve barons by tenure summoned in 1489 and subsequent
years, and their heirs, who sat in the Irish House of Lords together
with the original three earls and other peers created by patent. No
others holding by tenure sat, and an alleged baron by tenure who never
sat in the Irish House of Lords would prima facie lack credibility.'
The Tenures Abolition Act of 1660
The Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 was designed to remove the onerous
burdens associated with certain forms of feudal tenure, such as
wardship. These onerous burdens were, in the main, attached to the
noble forms of tenure i.e. knight's service and grand sergeantry. Grand
sergeantry was the holding of land in return for the performance of a
service to the King, such as providing a cook for the coronation.
Almost any service performed directly for the King seems to have
constituted grand sergeantry. Petty sergeantry involved other lesser
forms of service. Note that a barony could be held by military service
only, by both military service and grand sergeantry or, I believe, by
grand sergeantry alone. I believe that it was also possible to hold a
barony by purely nominal service, such as a penny a year, if asked;
this was certainly the case in Scotland. The Act was actually an attack
on the prerogative of the Crown since it was the Crown which usually
benefited (financially) from these burdens - which is why the King
resisted the Act so vigourously.
Essentially, the Act abolished certain forms of feudal tenure and
converted them into another form of tenure, that is 'free and common
socage', ancestor of our modern tenure of 'freehold'. The forms of
tenure that were abolished were tenure by knight's service, tenure by
grand sergeantry and all tenures in capite, that is tenures held in
chief of the King. No mention is made in the Act of tenure by barony
but since baronies were held in capite, it would seem that tenure by
barony must have been abolished by the Act. However, since the tenures
that were abolished were converted into another form of tenure, that is
free and common socage, it would seem that these new tenures must still
have been held OF someone and that this person can only have been the
King. In other words, the Act says that all tenures in capite are
abolished but it actually just creates a whole new set of tenures in
capite. One thing, I believe, is certain, namely that the Act did not
create 'alloidal' tenures, that is tenures held of no superior.
Although tenure by barony was apparently abolished by the Act, section
11 states that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour,
feudal or other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in
the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or
sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'.
This means that even if tenure by barony was abolished, feudal baronial
titles, and any right to sit in the House of Lords arising, were
specifically preserved.
Although the Act preserves baronial titles, it does not expressly state
how they were to be preserved. The question is 'If baronial tenure is
abolished, how does a baron hold a barony? Is the barony still attached
to the land (i.e. feudal) or does it become a personal title?' My view
is as follows. When a barony was held by feudal tenure (i.e. attached
to the land) it passed in accordance with the limitations specified in
the charter granting the barony e.g. 'heirs and successors'. If there
was no limitation then it must have been the case that a baron could
dispose of his barony as he pleased (i.e. if there was no limitation
specified there was nothing to alienate FROM). A baron could alienate
his barony away from his 'heirs and successors', if this was the
specified limitation, with licence from the King but, importantly, he
could also alienate his barony away from his 'heirs and successors'
WITHOUT licence from the King, subject only to being liable to a fine.
Now, if the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 converted feudal titles into
personal titles (baronies by writ - as the judges in the Berkeley case
of 1861 ruled) then the barony could only descend to heirs general in
accordance with the normal rules associated with baronies by writ. In
addition, a barony by writ can fall into abeyance, whereas a feudal
barony cannot; it passes to the eldest daughter. It is clear, on this
basis, that the 'conversion' of feudal baronies into baronies by writ
would have represented a substantial restriction of the rights of
barons in relation to their powers of disposing of their baronies. We
therefore have, quite clearly, an Act which TAKES AWAY RIGHTS. This is
where a fundamental doctrine of English law comes into play, the
presumption against taking away rights. This doctrine states that a
person's rights cannot be taken away by statute except by express
language or necessary implication. So the question is 'Is there express
language in the Act which says that feudal titles were to be converted
into personal titles or is it a necessary consequence of the Act that
this should happen?' Well, there is no express statement in the Act to
this effect, so we are left asking whether the conversion of feudal
into personal titles was a necessary consequence of the Act. There is a
strong temptation to argue that since the Act abolished tenure by
barony, baronies could not be held by tenure as a result; in which case
they must have been converted into personal titles. This is wrong. The
fact is that the Act actually replaced tenure by barony with tenure by
free and common socage i.e. it just replaced one form of tenure with
another. So could a barony be held by free and common socage? The
answer is 'Yes'. The King had the right to grant a barony subject to
ANY feudal tenure he pleased, whether by knight's service, grant
sergeantry or honorary service (effectively no service) only. So, if
the King had the right to grant a barony to be held by free and common
socage then it was NOT a necessary consequence of the Act that feudal
titles should become personal titles. On this basis, the law will
assume that feudal baronies remained attached to the land and, as a
consequence of the Act, were held of the King by free and common
socage. The effect of the Act was therefore to abolish tenure by barony
but to leave feudal baronies as titles attached to land held directly
of the King by free and common socage and capable of being disposed of
as before the Act, except that the Act abolished fines for alienation.
In other words, feudal baronies remained feudal. The preservation by
the Act of the honorary services of grand sergeantry by tenure of free
and common socage proves, in my view, that baronial service could also
be preserved to be held by free and common socage. As with baronial
titles there is nothing in the Act which makes the honorary services of
grand sergeantry personal duties, so, as with baronial titles, they
were still attached to the land and passed with the ownership of it.
The Berkeley Case of 1861.
In the Berkeley Case of 1861, the claimant, Maurice Berkeley
(1788-1867), who was an illegitimate son of Frederick Berkeley
(1745-1810), 5th Earl of Berkeley, and who held the castle and estate
of Berkeley as tenant for life under a trust, claimed the right to a
seat in the House of Lords by virtue of holding the feudal Barony of
Berkeley by tenure, which was historically attached to Berkeley castle.
The Committee for Priveleges of the House of Lords found that the
claimant had not made out his claim and ruled, inter alia, a). that
section 11 of the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 (see above) 'has not
the effect of preserving such barony by tenure, if it ever existed' and
b). that a tenant for life or devisee of such hereditaments (property)
has no legal right to a seat in the House of Lords.
It is important to realise that when the House of Lords ruled that the
Tenures Abolition Act 'has not the effect of preserving such barony by
tenure, if it ever existed', they did not say that feudal baronial
titles themselves, or any right to a seat in the House of Lords
arising, no longer existed. They merely ruled that the barony by tenure
had been abolished and that since the claimant claimed a seat in the
House of Lords by virtue of holding a barony by tenure, his claim must
fail. Lord St. Leonards, one of the judges in the case, stated in his
judgement that 'The right to sit [in the House of Lords] is saved [by
section 11 of the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660], but it no longer
depends upon the tenure which is extinguished. The title of Honor was
left as a substantive personal right. The tenure was not saved in the
particular instance in order to save the title of Honor, but the title
of Honor was itself saved although the tenure was destroyed....There
is, indeed, a Barony of Berkeley, not depending on tenure still
existing.' (VIII, HLC, 118-119). So there we have it in black and
white. Lord St. Leonards stated later in his judgement that 'we are
bound to consider the Act of Charles 2 as having extinguished the
tenure under which the Petitioner seeks to establish his right to sit
in this House' which is true but potentially misleading, as we have
seen; tenure by barony was abolished but baronial titles were
preserved. It is quite clear, therefore, by Lord St. Leonards' own
admission, that feudal baronial titles and any right to sit in the
House of Lords arising from tenure by barony still existed in 1861 and
so, of course, continue to exist to this day, subject only to the
consequences of the House of Lords Act 1999.
As I state above, I disagree that any feudal baronies existing at that
time (1660) were converted into baronies by writ (i.e. personal titles)
since there is no express statement to that effect in the Act and it is
not a 'necessary implication' of the Act. In other words, my view is
that the Barony of Berkeley was still attached to the castle but it was
held by free and common socage rather than 'per baroniam' or 'by
barony'.
A number of arguments have been put forward in relation to the above as
Section 11 refers to baronies by writ only.
No, section 11 specifically refers to 'any title of honour, feudal or
other'.
Section 11 refers to existing members of the House of Lords only.
No, section 11 specifically refers to 'any title of honour, feudal or
other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in the Lords
House of Parliament'. There are no words in the Act restricting the
operation of section 11 to existing members of the House of Lords, who,
of course, held personal, not feudal, titles.
Note that Lord St. Leonards stated (VIII, HLC, 119) that 'The Act found
the Lords' House of Parliament filled with Peers sitting with
inheritable blood, and it effectually saved their right. This House has
consequently ever since (a period of two centuries), been constituted
of Peers claiming either under an original writ of summons or by
patent. No man has sat here under a simple right depending on the
acquisition of a baronial estate [This is, in fact, wrong, as proved by
another judge in the case, Lord Redesdale, who referred to the baronies
of Abergavenny and Berkeley (VIII, HLC, 153)].' What this means is not
that section 11 of the Act referred to existing peers only but that the
Act, by abolishing barony by tenure, ensured that people who had been
barons by tenure could not sit as barons by tenure but as barons
holding a personal title, in the same way as existing peers. This is
why Lord St. Leonards says the Act 'effectually saved their right' as
opposed to directly saving their right, which would have been the case
if section 11 had referred to existing peers.
Feudal baronial titles are not 'titles of honour'.
Lord St. Leonards specifically referred to feudal baronial titles as
titles of honour when he stated that 'the title of Honor was itself
saved although the tenure was destroyed'. In addition, the
Attorney-General, the Government's solicitor, quoted Lord Hale
referring to a 'feudal title of honour' (VIII, HLC, 34), with reference
to the Earldom of Arundel and the Barony of Berkeley. In addition,
authoritative sources, such as Sanders 'English Baronies' (p. viii)
refer to feudal baronies as honours. If you want an actual example,
there is, of course, the famous 'Honour of Clare'. It is also worth
asking the question as to why the government lawyers who drafted the
Tenures Abolition Act of 1660, who presumably knew what they were
talking about, should draft a clause referring to 'any title of honour,
feudal or other' if there was no such thing as a feudal title of
honour. Rather pointless I would have thought.
Feudal baronies may be honours but this does not mean that feudal
baronial titles are titles of honour.
See above.
It is illegal to sell titles of honour and since feudal baronies can be
sold they cannot be titles of honour.
This refers to the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act of 1925 which
states that 'If any person accepts (or gives, or agrees or proposes to
give) or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for
himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift , or
money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for
procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a
dignity or title or honour to any person, or otherwise in connection
with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour'. This actually
makes it illegal to pay for the grant (by the Crown - via the Prime
Mimister - it was Lloyd George's blatant selling of titles that led to
the Act) of a dignity or title of honour, which is what the Act was
designed to prevent, it says nothing about the sale of a title of
honour by one person to another. The Act says quite clearly 'to procure
the grant of a dignity or title or honour to any person'.
Modern peerages created by patent are, of course, personal dignities
that pass in accordance with the destination clause in the patent of
creation and peerages by writ pass to heirs general in accordance with
well-established (but incorrect) rules; they are both, by the very
nature, unsaleable.
Feudal baronies have 'fallen out of use'.
It was decided in the Fitzwalter case (actually not a legal case at all
but a 'decision' of the Privy Council) in 1670 that 'the nature of a
barony by tenure being discoursed, it was found to have been
discontinued for many ages, and not in being, and so not fit to be
revived'. As counsel for the claimant in the Berkeley Case said: 'In
law the resolution was wrong. Desuetude cannot determine a right. The
law as to wager of battle [see below] is an instance of that.' (VIII,
HLC, 56). This did not stop the Attorney-General saying 'If, therefore,
any such right as that now contended for ever had existed, it has been
lost by desuetude.' or some of the judges citing the 'decision' in the
Fitzwalter case. What they overlooked (steam-rollered through), in
spite of the fact that the point was specifically raised by counsel for
the claimant, is a fundamental doctrine in English law called the
'presumption against taking away rights' which basically means that the
rights of an individual (that is any right, including a right to a
title and a right to sit in the House of Lords) cannot be taken away by
statute except by express language or necessary implication (See Gadd's
'Peerage Law', ISCA Publishing Ltd, 1985, p.103). Now, if a right
can only be taken away, even by statute, by express language or
necessary implication, how can a right be lost through the mere passage
of time? Surely the answer is that it can't. The Tenures Abolition Act
of 1660 itself proves this point beyond any doubt, because it was
clearly necessary to pass an Act of Parliament (The Tenures Abolition
Act) to extinguish tenure by military service, even though the last
proper military summons in England took place in 1327 (according to
Sanders), some 333 years earlier; in short, the fact that tenure by
miltary service had fallen into disuse over 300 years earlier had not
affected its legal existence one jot. In this context , it is relevant
to consider Gadd's 'Peerage Law' (p. 110) quoting Lord Halsbury
in the Earldom of Norfolk case, namely: 'Our duty is to the best of
our ability to ascertain what the law is, and, having ascertained it,
to give effect to it; to alter it or even modify it is the function of
the Legislature, and not of your Lordships' House. No stronger
illustration of this principle can be given than when, so lately as
1818, the Court of King's Bench, with Lord Ellenborough presiding,
felt itself compelled to allow a claim to wager of battle [trial by
combat] in an appeal of murder, and but for the intervention of an Act
of Parliament (59 Geo. III, c.46), some of His Majesty's judges might
have had to preside over a single combat between the appellant and his
antagonist.' Thus the judges in that case felt compelled to enforce a
law that had fallen out of use at least 500 years earlier. It is also
worth noting that the House of Lords has recognised a number of
baronies by writ that had been in abeyance for hundreds of years,
including the Barony of Strabolgi (which was actually completely
non-existent), which had been in abeyance for 547 years.
No feudal barons have sat in the House of Lords for centuries.
This is really just the previous argument put in another way.
Decisions of the House of Lords are final, so there's no point in
discussing it.
Incorrect. Decisions of the House of Lords are not final and can be
overturned in a number of ways, including by the House of Lords itself
(which is not bound to follow its own precedents), by Parliament, by
other courts (e.g. European Court of Human Rights) and also by the
Crown itself in certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is
peerage cases, where, as I understand it, the House of Lords makes a
recommendation to the Sovereign, not a legal decision as such. In any
event, if the House of Lords makes a wrong decision (for whatever
reason) then this fact should be made clear. I would have thought that
this was obvious - but apparently not.
When Lord St. Leonards' said 'There is, indeed, a Barony of Berkeley,
not depending on tenure still existing' he was referring to the barony
of Berkeley created by writ of summons in 1295.
Incorrect. If you read Lord St. Leonards' judgement it is quite clear
that he is referring to the feudal barony of Berkeley. The existence of
the barony by writ was never in question, was actually held at this
time by another person (Thomas Berkeley, 14th baron by writ), was not
claimed by the claimant, could not be claimed by the claimant (since he
was illegitimate) and the existence of that barony was absolutely
irrelevant to the claim before the House. It would have made no
difference to the claim if the barony by writ had never existed
(although the existence of the barony by writ did confuse matters
somewhat). In fact, Lord St. Leonards even stated (VIII, HLC, 119) that
'if the petitioner were to establish his claim, there might be two
Barons of Berkeley sitting here at the same time, one a Baron by
tenure, and the other a Baron by writ of summons.'
Lord St. Leonards statements were only 'passing comments'.
No, his statements were part of his judgement.
Feudal baronies could only be alienated with licence. Alienation
without a licence did not permit a new owner to claim the dignity.
An interesting assertion (as far as I can see unsupported by statute or
by any major legal authority) but if this is the case then why didn't
the judges in the Berkeley case of 1861 simply dismiss the claim on the
basis that the claimant was an illegitimate son of the 5th Earl of
Berkeley and that the claimant's inheritance of the barony represented
an alienation (from the legal heir of the 5th Earl, the 6th Earl)
without licence? The fact that this argument was not put forward by the
Attorney-General (the Government's lawyer), who surely would have used
it if he could, would seem to indicate that it is without foundation.
In fact, the Attorney-General said 'It was an assumption made by the
claimant that there could not previously to the statute of Charles 2
[The Tenures Abolition Act of 1660], be any alienation without licence
from the Crown. Alienations might have been made upon ordinary fines. A
fine would have been payable, nothing more. There is no reason for
holding that lands created into a barony, did not partake of the
ordinary liberty of alienation incident to other lands, no reversion
being in the Crown'. In other words, the Attorney-General is
acknowledging that baronies could be alienated in the same way as other
lands held in chief of the King; that is they could be alienated with a
licence from the King or, if alienated without licence, by the payment
of a fine (I Ed. III, st. 2, c.12).
Holders of feudal baronies were required to do homage for them and if
they did not pay homage they could not hold a barony.
Another interesting assertion (also, as far as I can see, unsupported
by statute or by any major legal authority) but, again, if this is the
case then why didn't the judges in the Berkeley case of 1861 simply
dismiss the claim on the basis that the claimant (or presumably any
number of the previous holders of the barony) had not paid homage for
the barony (which, presumably, the King would not be obliged to
accept)? The fact that this argument was not put forward by the
Attorney-General (the Government's lawyer), who surely would have used
it if he could, would seem to indicate that it is without foundation.
Note: An act of homage was originally the central part of the process
whereby a vassal received a grant of land from a superior. In essence
this process consisted of a ceremony (in front of reputable witnesses
who could attest to it) where the vassal knelt before his superior (to
be), placed his hands between those of his superior and swore fealty to
him; in return the superior granted lands to be held by the vassal of
him and handed over a sod of earth and a stone to represent the lands
being granted. This ceremony was superceded at an early date by a
written charter which provided the security of physical evidence of the
grant, that is a piece of paper, and the act of homage became redundant
in legal terms.
I believe that it was possible to hold land by homage, which meant that
an act of homage was the service due from the lands (as opposed to,
say, knight's service). In other words, the act of homage was the
actual service due from the lands rather than a ceremony evidencing the
actual service due from the lands (e.g. knight's service). In such
cases, it would be logical that if the service (the act of homage) was
not performed then the land would be lost. So, if a barony was held by
the service of an act of homage, failure to perform that act of homage
could have led to forfeiture of the barony. Perhaps this is what has
caused confusion.
Broadly speaking, the same arguments apply to Irish feudal baronies
which were subject to a similar Act.
Graham Senior-Milne
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-05 23:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
I certainly don't have time to read and absorb this extremeley long
post this evening - I have to say these postings are very difficult to
read as they are so rambling. A few additional paragraphs and the use
of bullet points would improve them a lot. A short three or four
paragraph precis would help tremendously!
Is there any chance that you might grow up at some point and stop
trying to snipe?

Here's the precis you asked for:

I am right and you are wrong.

(Apologies to everyone else but I couldn't resist it!)
Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Peskett does seem to be saying that English and Irish feudal baronies
have been abolished, but I suspect that all the paragraphs following
are Mr Senior-Milne refuting this.
At a quick glance through the rest of the posting I see Mr
Senior-Milne mentions "socage". Socage was a form of feudal tenure -
the land was held in return for a money rent; although no knight
service was required, the tenant still had to do fealty to the
superior landlord. I am not sure at this stage what the connection is
with feudal baronies.
Socage was a form of feudal tenure. Well, thank you for that
information.

Well done. A constructive contribution.

Graham Senior-Milne
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
2005-09-08 09:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
I certainly don't have time to read and absorb this extremeley long
post this evening - I have to say these postings are very difficult to
read as they are so rambling. A few additional paragraphs and the use
of bullet points would improve them a lot. A short three or four
paragraph precis would help tremendously!
Is there any chance that you might grow up at some point and stop
trying to snipe?
I am not trying to snipe - at my age I find your long rambling
postings incredibly difficult to read and digest - your literary style
makes the easy following of your arguments quite difficult.
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I am right and you are wrong.
(Apologies to everyone else but I couldn't resist it!)
It is not a question of whether I personally am right or wrong, as I
am not making any new argument about the continuing existence of
feudal baronies (i.e. baronies by tenure). The question is whether on
the one side the Redesdale Committee, the judges sitting on the
Berkeley Case, peerage law experts such as Ron Gadd, etc. are correct
in their assertions, decisions, comments, etc. that baronies by tenure
no longer exist and probably have not existed since the 1661 Act of
King Charles II, or whether on the other side one person, namely
yourself, is correct in your assertion that baronies by tenure do
continue to exist.

A simple case of you against them!
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Peskett does seem to be saying that English and Irish feudal baronies
have been abolished, but I suspect that all the paragraphs following
are Mr Senior-Milne refuting this.
At a quick glance through the rest of the posting I see Mr
Senior-Milne mentions "socage". Socage was a form of feudal tenure -
the land was held in return for a money rent; although no knight
service was required, the tenant still had to do fealty to the
superior landlord. I am not sure at this stage what the connection is
with feudal baronies.
Socage was a form of feudal tenure. Well, thank you for that
information.
Well done. A constructive contribution.
My point is that as far as I am aware socage was only involved where
the rendering of knight service would be inappropriate. For example,
my own family held the Manor of Cracroft off the Abbots of Bardney (to
whom is had been granted by Gilbert de Ghent) by an annual payment of
4 shillings but prior to that held it off the de Ghents by knight
service. I cannot imagine that a major feudal barony would be held by
socage.
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Graham Senior-Milne
My dear Mr Senior-Milne

There really is no need for your sarcasm. It adds nothing to the
debate.

I was reading through my copy of Gadd's "Peerage Law" yesterday and to
my mind Ron Gadd's comments on page 21 really do sum up this whole
argument about whether baronies by tenure, that is to say English or
Iriish feudal baronies, continue to exist into the 21st century.

<start quote>

The last claim for a barony by tenure was heard in 1861. The
petitioner's claim was based on the fact that his predecessors had
held the Castle and barony of Berkeley and in this right were entitled
to be summoned to parliament as barons of the realm. The cliam was
first made in the year 1858 and was referred to the House of Lords.
The case was argued at great length and has been reported several
times. At the end the Committee for Privileges was unanimous that the
claimant had not made out his claim and that whatever might have been
the position in the past, baronies by tenure no longer existed.

The Redesdale Committee in its [seperate] report outlined the
objections to the doctrine of baronies by tenure pointing out that a
peerage by tenure is inconsistent with the idea of hereditary
peerages, as if a peerage was attached to land which was then
transferred, the previous owner would cease to be a peer. Further, it
is of the essence of a peerage of England that, certainly since the
time of Edward I, it is inalienable. Also, even a trespasser could
acquire titles to land and, therefore, to a peerage attached to the
land. The Berkeley Case also showed that there would be other
difficulties were peerages by tenure to be recognised, for example, a
peer could by his will deprive his legitimate heirs of his peerage by
settling property on strangers. The Redesdale Committee also
considered that the statute passed in the reign of Charles II had
abolished tenures and, therefore, to treat baronies by tenure as still
existing would be inconcsistent with that Act. The judges sitting in
the Berkeley Case took the view that even if there were any baronies
by tenure the Act of Charles II would have the effect of converting
them to baronies by writ.

Therefore, the conclusion must be that whatever may have been the case
in the early 15th century, baronies by tenure no longer exist."

<end quote>

I would ask Mr Senior-Milne not to go off the handle at this point and
launch into an overlong refutation of what Gadd has written, but
simply to say whether he accepts or does not accept Gadd's conclusion.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-15 11:59:43 UTC
Permalink
I am sure you will not mind my pointing out the fact that your post
contains no reasoning whatsoever. Clearly, you have given up any idea
of discussing the issue on its merits and have been reduced to making
personal comments and assertions along the lines of 'x, y and z said
this so it must be right'.

First of all, we need to remember that we are actually concerned with
the survival of feudal baronial TITLES. According to Gadd, it was
decided in the Berkeley Case of 1861 that any feudal baronial titles
existing in 1660 (which would be all of them since feudal baronies are
indestructible except by an act of the Crown) were converted into
baronies by writ. So they agree that the titles survived (by virtue of
section 11 of the 1660 Act) but it is a question of the form in which
they survived. My point is that there is nothing in the 1660 Act which
specifically converts feudal baronies into baronies by writ. The judges
are clearly arguing that since holding 'per baroniam' was abolished (by
virtue of the fact that holding 'per baroniam' was holding in capite
and the Act abolished all holdings in capite) the holding of baronies
by tenure was abolished. What they overlooked, however, is the FACT
that what the 1660 Act actually did was to replace tenure by barony
with tenure by free and common socage. So the question is whether
baronies can be held by free and common socage. The answer, as I stated
in my previous post, is 'Yes'. So we have a situation where there is no
express statement in the 1660 Act converting feudal baronies into
baronies by writ and (since baronies can be held by free and common
socage) such conversion is not a necessary consequence of the Act. In
addition, as I also pointed out in my previous post (really, it is
getting tedious having to repeat myself for your benefit), the
honourable services of grand sergeantry were converted into holdings by
free and common socage by the Act, so, by extension, the same thing was
possible with baronies. As I said in my previous post, the King could
grant a barony to be held by any service he liked, whether military
service, grand sergeantry (the performance of some office), fixed
service or rent or no service at all ('a penny a year, if asked'). The
feudal system is full of examples of services such a 'a rose in
mid-winter' or 'a snowball in mid-summer' - just proving that the King,
as a feudal superior, could grant land to be held on any service he
pleased.

You say at the end of your post:

'I would ask Mr Senior-Milne not to go off the handle at this point and
launch into an overlong refutation of what Gadd has written, but simply
to say whether he accepts or does not accept Gadd's conclusion.'

The answer is that, unlike you, I do not accept anyone's CONCLUSIONS. I
look at their ARGUMENTS and I judge those ARGUMENTS on there merits. I
am perfectly prepared to acknowledge that certain people are
authorities and that their opinions carry weight accordingly but I will
not accept anyone as infallible. If their arguments are persuasive then
I accept them, if not I don't.

So, let me put a question to you. Are you prepared to argue the case on
its merits?

Graham Senior-Milne
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2005-09-15 12:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I am sure you will not mind my pointing out the fact that your post
contains no reasoning whatsoever.
<snip of turgid argument>

How are we supposed to know what on earth you are talking of:

(a) You don't say who "you" is,

(b) You don't quote what "you" had written (save for a snippet at the
end).

(Since you use Demon you could easily get hold of their Turnpike
software which would handle Newsgroup procedures for you.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-16 10:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Manners maketh man. If you were polite I might listen to you. But
thanks for the information. As a Chartered Accountant who has worked in
IT for many years (including extensive work in Internet security) if I
need any technical assistance in future I shall certainly bear you in
mind (not).
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
2005-09-15 17:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I am sure you will not mind my pointing out the fact that your post
contains no reasoning whatsoever. Clearly, you have given up any idea
of discussing the issue on its merits and have been reduced to making
personal comments and assertions along the lines of 'x, y and z said
this so it must be right'.
The reasoning on this matter has been repeated ad nauseam over the
years - I am not a lawyer so I am happy to follow the experts, as you
should be.
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
First of all, we need to remember that we are actually concerned with
the survival of feudal baronial TITLES. According to Gadd, it was
decided in the Berkeley Case of 1861 that any feudal baronial titles
existing in 1660 (which would be all of them since feudal baronies are
indestructible except by an act of the Crown) were converted into
baronies by writ. So they agree that the titles survived (by virtue of
section 11 of the 1660 Act) but it is a question of the form in which
they survived. My point is that there is nothing in the 1660 Act which
specifically converts feudal baronies into baronies by writ. The judges
are clearly arguing that since holding 'per baroniam' was abolished (by
virtue of the fact that holding 'per baroniam' was holding in capite
and the Act abolished all holdings in capite) the holding of baronies
by tenure was abolished. What they overlooked, however, is the FACT
that what the 1660 Act actually did was to replace tenure by barony
with tenure by free and common socage. So the question is whether
baronies can be held by free and common socage. The answer, as I stated
in my previous post, is 'Yes'. So we have a situation where there is no
express statement in the 1660 Act converting feudal baronies into
baronies by writ and (since baronies can be held by free and common
socage) such conversion is not a necessary consequence of the Act. In
addition, as I also pointed out in my previous post (really, it is
getting tedious having to repeat myself for your benefit), the
honourable services of grand sergeantry were converted into holdings by
free and common socage by the Act, so, by extension, the same thing was
possible with baronies. As I said in my previous post, the King could
grant a barony to be held by any service he liked, whether military
service, grand sergeantry (the performance of some office), fixed
service or rent or no service at all ('a penny a year, if asked'). The
feudal system is full of examples of services such a 'a rose in
mid-winter' or 'a snowball in mid-summer' - just proving that the King,
as a feudal superior, could grant land to be held on any service he
pleased.
Everybody apart from you accepts that the feudal system was abolished
in 1660. I am quite happy to accept the experts view and not those of
a non-expert such as yourself.
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
'I would ask Mr Senior-Milne not to go off the handle at this point and
launch into an overlong refutation of what Gadd has written, but simply
to say whether he accepts or does not accept Gadd's conclusion.'
The answer is that, unlike you, I do not accept anyone's CONCLUSIONS. I
look at their ARGUMENTS and I judge those ARGUMENTS on there merits. I
am perfectly prepared to acknowledge that certain people are
authorities and that their opinions carry weight accordingly but I will
not accept anyone as infallible. If their arguments are persuasive then
I accept them, if not I don't.
Once again you are using capitals - a very bad sign - you come over as
an extremely arrogant person who is totally convinced of his own
correctness. Your posts are essentially rants, trying to assert by
quantity an argument that has very little quality about it. I for one
have no intention of continuing this thread.
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
So, let me put a question to you. Are you prepared to argue the case on
its merits?
What is the point?
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Graham Senior-Milne
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-15 18:20:47 UTC
Permalink
You simply won't argue the case on its merits, will you? I think
readers will be able to draw their own conclusions. If you are right
why are you not prepared to put forward your arguments in a clear and
reasoned way? I challenge you to do this (and by arguments I don't mean
'x said that so it must be right'). You seem to think it most unfair
that you have finally met someone who simply won't be bullied into
submission. Well, tough luck.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
2005-09-16 15:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You simply won't argue the case on its merits, will you? I think
readers will be able to draw their own conclusions. If you are right
why are you not prepared to put forward your arguments in a clear and
reasoned way? I challenge you to do this (and by arguments I don't mean
'x said that so it must be right'). You seem to think it most unfair
that you have finally met someone who simply won't be bullied into
submission. Well, tough luck.
As a fellow chartered accountant I do expect you at least not to
accuse me of being a bully!!

This whole subject has been argued ad nauseam - you have one view,
every other poster has a different view. The only way to argue would
be to repeat the many postings that have already been made on this
subject. I am afraid that in this subject you are in a minority of
one.

You have argued the toss over this with people like Derek Howard, who
is much more expert in these matters than I am. There would be
nothing to gain by me rehashing his cogent arguments.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
StephenP
2005-09-17 08:00:59 UTC
Permalink
I am wondering what is the point of this debate? Even if the English
Feudal Baronies have not been consigned to history, what is their use?
I suppose there are marketing opportunities for some and any holder
could try to claim that would have been in the House of Lords but for
recent legislation.

I have no problem with people buying Lordships of the Manor or Scottish
Feudal Baronies if they have an interest in the area and its history.
If such purchases are merely an exercise in using their spare cash to
try to be a "cut above the rest" I am somewhat less than impressed.
Andrew
2005-09-17 09:17:18 UTC
Permalink
StephenP wrote:

I have no problem with people buying Lordships of the Manor or Scottish
Post by StephenP
Feudal Baronies if they have an interest in the area and its history.
If such purchases are merely an exercise in using their spare cash to
try to be a "cut above the rest" I am somewhat less than impressed.
It is very strange parallel between English Lordships of the Manor and
Baronies of Scotland. Since Appointed Day 28 November 2004 Baronies of
Scotland (former feudal baronies, created by direct grant of the Crown
and in special remainder to heirs and assignees of feudal jurisdiction
(superiority)) is nothing to do with land. By the Abolition Feudal
Tenure Scotland Act the dignity of Baron preserved to his holder (of
course, in meaning, who was already a Baron on the Appointed Day) and
his heirs, as incorporeal heriditment. This Act came into force and
confirmed by the Sovereign.
Scottish baronies is a rank of titled nobility, as once again
officially confirmed in the judgment by the Lyon Court of date 26
February 1943, and acknowledged by the Court of Session. Since a
holder of such a baronial jurisdiction was a direct vassal of the Crown
(with lands in property or not does not matter) he may be recognised by
the Sovereign, who is his direct Superior (through proper official who
is for Scotland Lord Lyon King of Arms), in noble rank of Baron and
granted arms in baronial form. Such grant of arms is official
confirmation by the Crown that a Barony changed hands (under terms of
the reminder of creation, may be considered as regrant). Only after
such a confirmation holder of a baronial jurisdiction obtained the rank
of Baron ( ex-officio) in sense as a title of dignity, state and
honour.
Feudal tenure (therefore superiority and jurisdiction) was abolished
and the Crown is no longer feudal Superior to a holder of former
baronial jurisdictions (in meaning holders of papers). The Crown will
not confirm any new "changing hands" between living people, since
the only part of the Remainder ( in the historical Charters under the
Great Seal of the Realm created and confirmed baronies) that may be
used for now is "to his heirs". Since feudal jurisdiction was
abolished what is object of assignation? Nothing. The superiority or
jurisdiction conveyed on its holder the dignity of baron was abolished.
Wherefore it is possible for now to buy a papers to a former baronial
superiority, but impossible to be recognised in the noble rank of
Baron. Even if AFTAct preserved a possibility for baronies to be
considered as a form of incorporeal hereditary property, but any way
the terms of the Crown remainder may not be broken. For baronies of
Scotland may be applied same procedure of sucession, as for every title
of honour, with exception that a current baron may appoint heir
presumptive to his barony.Even with several peerages of the Realm
procedure to appoint heir presumptive (regardless of blood or family
relation) may be applied. For Barony of Torphichen =Lordship of
Parliament in the Peerage of Scotland, for example. Since it is a
feudal barony created under usual remainder.
Baronies of Scotland are nothing to do with rarities for history
collections or "an interest in the area and its history". It is
actual titles of nobility existed in Scotland's nobiliary system and
recognised by the Crown. Opposite English Lordships of the Manor that
is exactly no more that "name of a holder of dogs and ducks".
Post by StephenP
I am wondering what is the point of this debate? Even if the English
Feudal Baronies have not been consigned to history, what is their use?
I suppose there are marketing opportunities for some and any holder
could try to claim that would have been in the House of Lords but for
recent legislation.
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-17 11:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
The Crown will
not confirm any new "changing hands" between living people, since
the only part of the Remainder ( in the historical Charters under the
Great Seal of the Realm created and confirmed baronies) that may be
used for now is "to his heirs". Since feudal jurisdiction was
abolished what is object of assignation? Nothing. The superiority or
jurisdiction conveyed on its holder the dignity of baron was abolished.
Wherefore it is possible for now to buy a papers to a former baronial
superiority, but impossible to be recognised in the noble rank of
Baron.
Incorrect. The Lord Lyon recognises barons by grants of baronial
additaments. This is Crown recognition of the status of baron. A baron
can also (should there be some 'difficulty' with the Lord Lyon) seek a
declarator from the Court of Session to the effect that he is a baron.
Also, a baron can have his status of baron recorded in his passport
(which I had done post 28/11/2004), which is official (and therefore
Crown) recognition.

Where did you get all that cobblers (please excuse the word but that is
what it is) about it being impossible to be recognised as a baron?

PS The 'object of assignation' is incorporeal heritable property i.e. a
barony, as stated by the 2000 Act.

Graham Senior-Milne
Andrew
2005-09-17 12:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Post by Andrew
The Crown will
not confirm any new "changing hands" between living people, since
the only part of the Remainder ( in the historical Charters under the
Great Seal of the Realm created and confirmed baronies) that may be
used for now is "to his heirs". Since feudal jurisdiction was
abolished what is object of assignation? Nothing. The superiority or
jurisdiction conveyed on its holder the dignity of baron was abolished.
Wherefore it is possible for now to buy a papers to a former baronial
superiority, but impossible to be recognised in the noble rank of
Baron.
Incorrect. The Lord Lyon recognises barons by grants of baronial
additaments. This is Crown recognition of the status of baron. A baron
can also (should there be some 'difficulty' with the Lord Lyon) seek a
declarator from the Court of Session to the effect that he is a baron.
Also, a baron can have his status of baron recorded in his passport
(which I had done post 28/11/2004), which is official (and therefore
Crown) recognition.
Where did you get all that cobblers (please excuse the word but that is
what it is) about it being impossible to be recognised as a baron?
PS The 'object of assignation' is incorporeal heritable property i.e. a
barony, as stated by the 2000 Act.
Dear EXPERT and last instance in all matters,
What is incorrect? You wrote exactly same me. You want your opinion
must be LAST? Or what? You been recognised by Lyon prior to Appointed
Day therefore you is Baron and may record your status in your UK
passport even in 10 or 100 years after. Are you been recognised by Lyon
after 28 November 2004? Impossible. Since in April 2004 was more then
50 people seeking recognition of baronial status (too much), Lyon
decided to make such a recognition separately from grant of Arms. In my
best knowledge all interim interlocutors of recognition of last barons
was signed by Lord Lyon Blair before this date, with point that the
arms will be granted some after. No, the object of assignation was a
barony in meaning as a feudal Superiority over the territorial entity.
The title of Baron (in meaning as the title of honor) derived from such
a superiority. The superiority was abolished on the Appointed Day. No
any NEW dignity of Baron ( in meaning title of honour , dignity and
state) will come with papers to former Barony (in meaning baronial
jurisdiction) after the Appointed Day, because the feudal jurisdiction
conveyed to its holder a right to dignity of Baron ( in meaning title
of honour , dignity and state( was abolished. I have spoken to Lyon
many times face to face in this matter because I am author of the guide
to the British Honours System for the Holy See. Please, not consider
yourself as a superexpert, you are very wrong. Please read attentively
if you want to appear against
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Graham Senior-Milne
Andrew
2005-09-17 13:20:30 UTC
Permalink
PS I refer to my above post to show that your attack was strange (at
least):

"By the Abolition Feudal Tenure Scotland Act the dignity of Baron
preserved to his holder (of course, in meaning, who was ALREADY a Baron
on the Appointed Day) and his heirs, as incorporeal heridiatment. This
Act came into force and confirmed by the Sovereign"

So, who you are to state that I was incorrect?
Post by Andrew
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Post by Andrew
The Crown will
not confirm any new "changing hands" between living people, since
the only part of the Remainder ( in the historical Charters under the
Great Seal of the Realm created and confirmed baronies) that may be
used for now is "to his heirs". Since feudal jurisdiction was
abolished what is object of assignation? Nothing. The superiority or
jurisdiction conveyed on its holder the dignity of baron was abolished.
Wherefore it is possible for now to buy a papers to a former baronial
superiority, but impossible to be recognised in the noble rank of
Baron.
Incorrect. The Lord Lyon recognises barons by grants of baronial
additaments. This is Crown recognition of the status of baron. A baron
can also (should there be some 'difficulty' with the Lord Lyon) seek a
declarator from the Court of Session to the effect that he is a baron.
Also, a baron can have his status of baron recorded in his passport
(which I had done post 28/11/2004), which is official (and therefore
Crown) recognition.
Where did you get all that cobblers (please excuse the word but that is
what it is) about it being impossible to be recognised as a baron?
PS The 'object of assignation' is incorporeal heritable property i.e. a
barony, as stated by the 2000 Act.
Dear EXPERT and last instance in all matters,
What is incorrect? You wrote exactly same me. You want your opinion
must be LAST? Or what? You been recognised by Lyon prior to Appointed
Day therefore you is Baron and may record your status in your UK
passport even in 10 or 100 years after. Are you been recognised by Lyon
after 28 November 2004? Impossible. Since in April 2004 was more then
50 people seeking recognition of baronial status (too much), Lyon
decided to make such a recognition separately from grant of Arms. In my
best knowledge all interim interlocutors of recognition of last barons
was signed by Lord Lyon Blair before this date, with point that the
arms will be granted some after. No, the object of assignation was a
barony in meaning as a feudal Superiority over the territorial entity.
The title of Baron (in meaning as the title of honor) derived from such
a superiority. The superiority was abolished on the Appointed Day. No
any NEW dignity of Baron ( in meaning title of honour , dignity and
state) will come with papers to former Barony (in meaning baronial
jurisdiction) after the Appointed Day, because the feudal jurisdiction
conveyed to its holder a right to dignity of Baron ( in meaning title
of honour , dignity and state( was abolished. I have spoken to Lyon
many times face to face in this matter because I am author of the guide
to the British Honours System for the Holy See. Please, not consider
yourself as a superexpert, you are very wrong. Please read attentively
if you want to appear against
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Graham Senior-Milne
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-18 11:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for addressing me as 'Dear Expert'. I am flattered - but not
surprised. Or possibly shaken but not stirred.

Scottish feudal baronies are, under the 2000 Act, incorporeal heritable
property. As such they can be sold just like other incorporeal
heritable property (e.g. a patent or copyright). The purchaser of this
property acquires a barony title and as owner of a barony title is
entitled to the title of baron. It really is that simple.

However, if you can obtain a letter from the Lord Lyon confirming that
it is his view that baronial titles cannot be sold after 28 Nov 2004
then I shall be most happy to consider his reasons. I am sure that
since the Lord Lyon has already confirmed this view to you verbally
'many times' that he will be happy to indulge such a minor request.

Graham Senior-Milne
Andrew
2005-09-18 13:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Thank you for addressing me as 'Dear Expert'. I am flattered - but not
surprised. Or possibly shaken but not stirred.
Scottish feudal baronies are, under the 2000 Act, incorporeal heritable
property. As such they can be sold just like other incorporeal
heritable property (e.g. a patent or copyright). The purchaser of this
property acquires a barony title and as owner of a barony title is
entitled to the title of baron. It really is that simple.
No, the Title of Baron ( in meaning as title of nobility) may not be
acquired by the way of purchasing the paper deed to former feudal
barony after 28 November 2004. You may buy papers, but the Title of
Baron will not come with it becouse after this date such papers has not
nobilitating effect. Your opinion nothing to do with Law. Your opinion
regarding the statement of the AFTScotlandAct is simply wrong.Please,
see below what the Report of AFT stated:

Report on Abolition of the Feudal System


Part 2 Abolition


Barons


2.31 Introduction. One of the most distinctively feudal features of the

system of land tenure in Scotland is that the holding of a feudal
estate in land on a particular type of title called a barony title
gives rise to certain conveyancing peculiarities and carries with it
certain privileges. The estate in land might be no more than the
dominium utile or even the bare dominium directum of a tiny plot of
waste ground, of little or no value in itself, which represents the
head place or caput of the barony.39 The estate in land can be bought
and sold in the normal way. Remarkable as it may seem, ownership of
such an estate in land carries with it a barony. It enables the owner
to claim ennoblement by the 'nobilitating effect' of the 'noble
quality' of the feudal title on which the land is held. The title of
'Baron of So-and-So' or 'Baroness of So-and-So' can be adopted. If the
holder is granted armorial bearings by the Lord Lyon (which is entirely

a matter for the Lord Lyon's administrative discretion) and if a
prima facie title to the barony is established there is a right to
relevant baronial additaments to the coat of arms. Baronial robes can
be worn. The baron can, in theory, hold a baron's court, appoint a
baron baillie to be judge, and exercise a minor civil and criminal
jurisdiction.


2.33 It is important to be clear about what is meant by a barony
title. The term is used in two senses. The first sense refers to the
actual title to the land. This must have originally been granted by the

Crown by a feudal grant which specifically conferred baronial
privileges and responsibilities. The conveyancing terminology varied
from time to time but a standard form of wording came to be a grant of
all and whole the lands and barony of X to be held in free barony (in
liberam baroniam). In this sense the term 'barony title' simply means a

title to land which can, from its nature and wording, be identified by
conveyancers as deriving from a Crown grant of land in barony. The land

or the estate in land must still be held of the Crown without any
intermediate superior but it is possible for the estate to be a mere
dominium directum. The second sense of 'barony title' refers to the
right to use the title or appellation 'Baron'. This is more of a lay
person's usage than a lawyer's usage but the idea that the
purchaser of a barony acquires a 'title' in this sense may well
contribute to the value of baronies on the market. In this report we
use 'barony title' in the conveyancing sense.

2.41: ' ...A barony could be sold along with a plot of land if that
were desired but the effect would be like selling a valuable painting
along with the land. From the Keeper's point of view the selling of
the painting, or the barony, would be a separate transaction of no
relevance to the land registers. We have no doubt that conveyancers
will be able to devise a suitable form of document for transferring
baronies as incorporeal heritable rights from one living person to
another '
' ...In other respect, including succession on
death, the law applicable to the preserved barony rights would be
unchanged. In cases of intestacy it would be the old pre-1964 law of
succession to heritable property, with its preference for males and its

rule of primogeniture, which would apply (53:this is because the barony

would be incorporeal heritable property (see the draft Bill clause
57(2)) and because s 37(1)(a) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964
preserves the pre-1964 rules for "any title, coat of arms, honour or
dignity transmissible on the death of the holder)'


Please do not consider yourself much expert thap peoples who prepared
this Report.



THIS is what AFT Act means. Since 28 November 2004 it is impossible for
new purchaser of paper deed to former barony to claim ennoblement on
the basis of such papers. Nobilitating effect came with such papers
only under the Feudal Tenure Legislation ( already abolished. At the
Appointed Day such nobilitating effect become non-existent. Since 28
November 2004 such papers is just papers and no more. The dignity of
Baron preserved to whom was already a Baron (recognised by the Crown)
on the Appointed Day becouse for them the act of ennoblement was
already done and may not be reworked.
Legal heir (even appointed heir) to dignity of Baron becomes a Baron
after the death of current Baron. It is very simple, like you said
above.

Since is not just this Act have a deal with Baronies of Scotland,
several other Acts of Law (that is not abolised) must be observed as
well, together with this AFTAct.

Any Scottish barony may be longer assigned to stranger, except
possibility to appoint heir presumptive who will succeed upon the death
of current baron (because remainder has not special restriction). The
AFT Scotland Act separated baronies from feudal tenure and converted it
in incorporeal heritable property, therefore Barony of Scotland is a
honorific dignity, title, state, honour (opposite to English baronies
by tenure, that was not preserved by the Act of 1660 and was not
converted into honorific dignities). Therefore the title of a Baron of
Scotland no longer depends from the feudal tenure (therefore is not a
feudal title, but just feudal in origin) Since the title of Baron is a
title of nobility and the title of honour (as officially recognised by
the Crown and by a many Court Judgments) this form of incorporeal
heritable property is incorporeal heriditament. Therefore it must be
treated as exactly such type. A title of Baron of Scotland should not
be confused with English Lordship of the Manor. The last one is also
incorporeal heritable property, but not is a title of nobility, is not
a dignity and is not a title of honour. Therefore last one may be
assigned to anybody and anytime, but the first one only under the terms
of proper permissions (Crown Remainders and other Sovereign acts).

To be honest, this is very similar with any European country custom.
Any feudal honour has nobilitating effect only in the time when Feudal
Tenure was in force. After this time no any feudal honours has
nobilitating effect. But any holder of such honours, who held it in the
time of Feudal Tenure was in force, after abolition of such Tenure,
must be considered as noble, because nobilitation was already done upon
them. And, if the proper Abolition Act included preserving clause
regarding their titles, they (and their successors of the same are)
will continue to hold their titles ( not as feudal titles, but as
honorific titles).

Be sure, Lord Lyon has the absolutely the same view, becouse he if
lawyer.

Very simple.
However, if you can obtain a letter from the Lord Lyon confirming that
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
it is his view that baronial titles cannot be sold after 28 Nov 2004
then I shall be most happy to consider his reasons. I am sure that
since the Lord Lyon has already confirmed this view to you verbally
'many times' that he will be happy to indulge such a minor request.
Graham Senior-Milne
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-18 14:51:50 UTC
Permalink
You quote the Report on the Abolition of the Feudal System which is not
law. The 2000 Act is the law and there is nothing in it which has the
effect you state - I note you do not quote the Act. Furthermore you
quote a part of the report that deals with succession on intestacy, so
the foundation of your entire argument is nonsense.

It was the 2000 Act which changed the law, so can you quote any part of
that Act which says that baronial titles cannot be sold after the
appointed day?

As I asked before, will you obtain a letter from the Lord Lyon?

Graham Senior-Milne
Andrew
2005-09-18 16:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Your mistake derived from yours misunderstanding of terminology.
Unfortunately you may not understand correct what may be bough and
sold, what may not be sold and may not be bought.
It is impossible and was impossible to buy your nobility. It is
impossible and was impossible to buy you title of nobility. Up to 28
November 2004 in Scotland you might buy a right to be ennobled under
the terms of Feudal Tenure System.

Any feudal titles (dignities) of tenants-in-chief (overlord, with
judicial powers) granted by the Crown (as feudal Superior) under the
terms of Feudal Tenure System have nobilitating effect only at the time
when Feudal Tenure System is in force. After the date of abolition of
Feudal Tenure System no any such a feudal honours has nobilitating
effect. Any holder of such a feudal honours who held it at the time
when Feudal Tenure System was in force (even after abolition of this
System) considered as noble, because nobilitation was already done upon
them by virtue of holding such a feudal dignities at the time when
Feudal Tenure System was in force. And, if the proper Abolition Act
included preserving clause regarding their titles, they (and their
successors in the same are) will continue to hold their titles (not as
feudal titles, but as honorific titles, treated as incorporeal
heriditament (form of incorporeal heritable property).

- The AFT Scotland Act abolished feudal tenure, separated Baronies from
overlordship and converted it in incorporeal heritable property.
Therefore since Appointed Day a Barony of Scotland is a honorific title
, dignity and state .Therefore the title of a Baron no longer depends
from the feudal tenure (therefore is not a feudal title, but just
feudal in origin).

- There are two meanings of the term Barony. This term is used in two
senses: first one - the actual title to a superiority (overlordship)
over the territorial entity, originally granted by the Crown (in its
capacity as feudal Superior) in 'liberam baroniam' (sometime also
in 'liberam regalitatem'). Only this term used in conveyancing
terminology. Second one: the title of nobility in the rank and dignity
of Baron derived under Feudal Tenure System by the way of ennoblement
of a holder of such a baronial jurisdiction. The ennoblement of such a
holder of such a baronial jurisdiction under the rank and dignity of
Baron derived from a recognition of new holder (by the way of
acknowledgement and agreement of his infeft) by the Crown (who is
feudal Superior, creator and grantor of such a feudal jurisdiction)
must be ) This second sence of the term Barony never used in
conveyancing sense.

- Is not only AFT Scotland Act dealing with Scottish baronies, but a
lot of other valid Legal Acts deal with them. Therefore to establish
correct legal positions of Baronies the AFT Scotland Act must be
observed and considered together with other valid norms of legislation.
Since the dignity of Baron is a title of nobility and the title of
honour (as officially recognised by the Crown and by many judgments of
the proper Courts of Law, therefore the part of legislation) this form
of incorporeal heritable property is incorporeal heriditament.
Therefore it must be treated as exactly such type. A dignity of Baron
should not be confused with English Lordship of the Manor. The last one
is also incorporeal heritable property, but not is a title of nobility,
is not a dignity and is not a title of honour. Therefore last one may
be assigned to anybody and anytime, but the first one only under the
terms of proper permissions (Crown Remainders and other Sovereign
acts).

- It is impossible for anyone who after the date 28 November 2004 has
acquired a paper deed to barony (former feudal barony) to claim
ennoblement on the basis of such documentation, because nobilitating
effect derived from such a transaction only under Feudal Tenure System,
which is abolished. Therefore since 28 November 2004 such papers are
just papers and no more. Dignity of Baron preserved by virtue of the
AFT Scotland Act for whom was already a Baron (recognised as such by
the Crown) on the Appointed Day, because for them the act of
ennoblement was already done by virtue of Feudal System that was
officially acknowledged and recognised by the Crown.

- A dignity of Baron may not be adopted as result of acquiring of a
paper deed to barony (former feudal barony) transferred after 28
November 2004. After this date it is possible to acquire a paper deed
to barony (former feudal barony), but the noble title of Baron will not
derived with it, because nobilitating effect (which such a feudal
barony had at the time of valid Feudal Tenure System) become
non-existent since abovementioned Appointed Day since which feudal
tenure was abolished.

- A dignity of Baron may be longer assigned to stranger in blood only
by the virtue of possibility to appoint blood-stranger heir presumptive
who will succeed upon the death of current baron (because Remainder has
not special restriction).


Now you have the same situation as with non-existent English feudal
baronies. It is impossible to find argumentation to be enough to cure
you from your mistake and misunderstanding. Lord Lyon is a
Sovereign's Minister and Judge in the Court of Law, and is not a
private EXPERT like you. I think, all his opinions he must to keep for
private conversations and discussions, but not for official letters. Do
you know any person who was by Lyon (by the Crown) firstly (originally)
recognised in title of Baron after the Appointed Day)? If you will say
that you know several, who was not recognised as titled person by the
Lyon (by the Crown, by the Court of Session) and has recorded such a
"status" into UK passport, I answer you that by the Deed of Change
Name anybody may become even Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and legally
obtain UK passport with such a name. How about "Prince Michel of
Albany" - very good sound name.
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-18 21:16:06 UTC
Permalink
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so.

Neither have you said that you will obtain a letter from your friend
the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?

Graham Senior-Milne

PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself.
Andrew
2005-09-19 07:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Dear Baron of Mordington,

You wrote:

"You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from your friend the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?
Graham Senior-Milne
PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself"

The last your sentence is about yourself. Where in any my post I stated
that Lord Lyon is my friend? Do you able to read? Do you understand
that not only (not single) AFT Scotland Act dealing with baronies of
Scotland but a many of other current valid legal norm? Do you
understand that AFT Scotland Act do not abolish any such a legal norms?
Do you understand that since a title and dignity of Baron is a title of
nobility and of honour as was legally established by proper Courts of
Law, and therefore is a norm of current legislation? Do you understand
that a title of nobility (of honour) is incorporeal hereditament (the
proper form of incorporeal heritable property)? Do you understand that
the nobility may not be sold and may not be bought? Do you understand
that the term "barony" used in two senses? Do you understand that
the term "barony" used in the AFT Scotland Act in conveyancing
sense? Do you understand that nobilitating effect of paper deed to
former feudal barony ceased to exist since 28 November 2004 because the
Feudal Tenure System (under virtue of which this nobilitating effect
was existent) was abolished on this day? Do you understand that the
'dignity of Baron' mentioned in the AFT Scotland Act is a
'dignity of Baron' that was already existent (in meaning recognised
upon somebody before the 28.11.2004) on the Appointed Day? Do you
understand that if you will sell paper deed to your former feudal
barony after 28.11.2004 the buyer will not obtain the right to be
ennobled, because the procedure of infeft (that is obligatory for
ennoblement, because the Crown must be satisfied in it, as feudal
Superior) is caused to exist already? Do you understand that if you
will sell paper deed to your former feudal barony after 28.11.2004 you
will retain your nobility and your dignity of Baron (if you were
recognised by the Crown before the 28.11.2004) because it was yours
before the AFT Act Came into force. Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will not become a
noble by the virtue of such a deed, because the Feudal Tenure System
(that in former time conveyed noble status on the holders of baronial
jurisdictions) is caused to exist. Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will obtain no more
than several sheets of paper and no any real right for baronial
additament and to a noble title of Baron? Do you understand that such a
buyer (if he has proper connection with Scotland) may be granted arms
by Lord Lyon by virtue of his ancestry or his residence, but certainly
may not be granted Baronial arms by the virtue of buying of a paper
deed to a former feudal barony?
Dear Mordington! I sure that you understand everything mentioned above.
The proof that you been recognised by the Lord Lyon (by the Crown) that
you infeft in your barony as on date of 11.11.2004 ( before the AD).
I have seen you site where you stated a lot of useful information. But
some places in it ( for example your wrong vision of status of English
feudal baronies) is makes all the information( even absolutely true)
doubtful. Dear Mordington! Please, understand that since Feudal tenure
System was abolished in England, there are irrelevant was abolished
Baronies by Tenure or not. Since Feudal Tenure was abolished such
'baronies' (in conveyancing meaning of this term), even if they
longer existent, has no any nobilitating effect. Any nobilitating
effect of such a baronies caused to exist at 1660. But the Act 1660
certainly has not any preservation clause for a dignity of Baron
derived from such a barony (in conveyancing meaning of this term),
therefore holders of such a baronies (after this Act 1660 came into
force) retain no a dignity of Baron ( in meaning as a title of honour).
But them, accordingly with English system, considered as gentry ( if
they was not elevated by the Crown to peerage).
But you have a lot of positive energy and you need to direct it into
the proper way. My king suggestion, that you energy may be directed
to establish for Barons of Scotland (former feudal barons) a status
amongst Peerage of Scotland (because for now their precedence is very
strange and based on the Baronetcy Warrant). It is certainly possible
to legally establish that all Scottish baronies pre-dated 1707 gave
rights to their holders attend a Parliament, therefore a right to be
considered as Peers of Scotland. And, no doubt, that Union Act
preserved this privilege. But, for sure it is possible for all Barons
of Scotland to seek official recognition of their proper normal
precedence (above Baronets and in the same grade with a Lords of
Parliament, immediately below them) and including into the Roll of
Peerage, or in a bad cause, of establishment of The Roll of the
Baronage of Scotland. Abovementioned is possible. But it must be proper
petition unto the Sovereign and must be proper support from people like
Honourable Sir Crispin Agnew,Bt. There are about 150 living people who
holds a dignity of a Baron. Meant ennobled under such a dignity by way
of recognition by the Crown, or succeeded such a dignity of Baron by
the order and provisions of succession). This is a not so many and may
not be more then existed on the date 28.11.2004. But they are not poor
people if it will be necessary to establish proper rights in the Court
of Session before the Petition to the Crown. It was not in Scotland
yet "Berkeley cause" in the Court of Session, it is not already
authomatical parliamentary right for hereditary peers, there is a
Barony of Torphichen in the Peerage of Scotland (and a lot of
precedence with the same creations, but now extinct), etc. All this
events are very useful and helpful for this purpose. If you will
direct your positive energy into this way and will consolidate Barons
for this matter it will be much more effective and for sure you will
meet with success.
With king regards,
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-19 23:28:49 UTC
Permalink
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from your friend the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?

Graham Senior-Milne

PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself"
Joseph McMillan
2005-09-19 23:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from your friend the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?
Graham Senior-Milne
PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself"
Usequequo, domine?

Joseph McMillan
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-21 14:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Sorry. I don't understand Chinese.
Andrew
2005-09-21 15:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Sorry. I don't understand Chinese.
'Would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself'. You not only
do not 'understand Chainise', unfortunately you do not like to
understand anything, because, as your aggressive and absolutely
ignoramus and senseless position established, you able to understand
only yourself, but nobody may understand you. My great condolences.
Very sorry for my poor English, as you show me by your ""learned""
hand,

Since you show highest unrespect to me and offended me,

Already without any my respect to you, sorry, dear "professor"..
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-21 22:37:14 UTC
Permalink
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?


Graham Senior-Milne


PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself
Andrew
2005-09-21 23:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?
Graham Senior-Milne
PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself
Again........ The only one comment: Very dangerous symptoms. It is
time for you to be inspected by the doctor. Very pity. Receive my
sincere condolences.
No any comment more.
Joseph McMillan
2005-09-22 02:35:21 UTC
Permalink
...and so on.

("Usequequo, domine?" means "How long, O Lord?", which seemed apropos.)

May a layman who has struggled to understand the implications of this
Act try to help out in breaking what seems to be an endless spiral?

The relevant portion of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act
of 2000 reads as follows:

****
63 Baronies and other dignities and offices

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

(2) When, by this Act, an estate held in barony ceases to exist
as a feudal estate, the dignity of baron, though retained, shall not
attach to the land; and on and after the appointed day any such dignity
shall be, and shall be transferable only as, incorporeal heritable
property (and shall not be an interest in land for the purposes of the
Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (c.33) or a right as respects
which a deed can be recorded in the Register of Sasines).

(3) Where there is registered, before the appointed day, a
heritable security over an estate to which is attached the dignity of
baron, the security shall on and after that day (until discharge)
affect-

(a) in the case of an estate of dominium utile, both the dignity of
baron and the land; and
(b) in any other case, the dignity of baron.
(4) In this section-

"conveyancing privilege" includes any privilege in relation to
prescription;
"dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any
heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity; and
"registered" has the same meaning as in Part 4 of this Act.

***

If I understand the point of contention correctly, Andrew contends that
after the appointed day (which was 28 November 2004) it is no longer
possible to buy or sell the title of baron. As I read his statements,
he adduces three basic, somewhat interlocked, arguments in support of
this position. First, he argues that the owner of a baronial
jurisdiction even before 28 November could only obtain the rank of
baron as a "title of dignity, state and honour" by virtue of a grant of
arms from Lord Lyon that includes baronial additaments and addresses
the grantee as "Baron of X." Secondly, he says that the fact that the
Act now prohibits the recording of transfers of baronies in either the
Land Register or the Register of Sasines, he says, means the Crown no
longer recognizes the legitimacy of such transfers between living
persons, only through the process of inheritance. Feudal tenure
(therefore superiority and jurisdiction) was abolished
and the Crown is no longer feudal Superior to a holder of former
baronial jurisdictions (in meaning holders of papers). Thirdly, he
contends that severing the barony from holding of the associated land
places the barony on the same footing as titles of honor and therefore
subject to the same laws of succession, which do not admit of sale.

It seems to me that in this case, Mr. Senior-Milne is correct:
Scottish barony titles can still be bought and sold. This is the
interpretation of the law contained in the Explanatory Notes to the Act
prepared by the Scottish Executive. These Notes state in paragraph 198
that "the retained dignity of baron will no longer attach to the land.
It will be a floating dignity which can be bought and sold ... and may
be bequeathed by will in the normal way. If a baron dies intestate, the
barony would transmit to the eldest son or other heir in accordance
with the pre-1964 rules on intestate succession which were preserved by
the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 for "any title, coat of arms, honour
or dignity transmissible on the death of the holder".

The first sentence seems clear enough: "It [the 'dignity of a
baron']...can be bought and sold." The second sentence, in which the
rules of succession to other titles and honors are applied to baronies,
states that these apply only in case a baron dies intestate.
Otherwise, he is free to sell the dignity or to bequeath it by will as
he pleases.

(An aside: I'm not certain, but might some of the confusion on this
point arise from the Act's statement that the "dignity of a baron...
shall be transferable only as incorporeal heritable property"? To the
non-specialist, this might imply that the property can be inherited, as
opposed to bought and sold, but "heritable property" in this case is
merely the approximate equivalent in Scottish law to "real property" in
English law. As HM Revenue explains it: "Heritable property consists
of land, and things built on, or attached to it. Corporeal heritable
property includes land, buildings, crops and growing timber.
Incorporeal heritable property includes bonds or securities over land."
Another example of incorporeal heritable property is the right of
salmon fishing. The opposite of heritable property is not
non-heritable but movable, or, as English law terms it, "personal
property."

Andrew's argument that the use of the style of "baron" as a rank of
nobility was dependent on recognition by Lord Lyon seems to me to be a
red herring. A baron became a baron by being the tenant-in-chief of
lands that had been erected by crown charter into a barony. There must
have been hundreds of barons over the centuries who have never bothered
to petition Lord Lyon for arms; their right to style themselves as
barons and (at one time) to sit in the Scottish Parliament and hold
barony courts did not depend on Lyon's sanction. Indeed, there would
be little sense in the Act's preserving the saleability of the dignity
of baron if the purchaser would be unable to use the style and enjoy
what minor precedence comes with it.

I do think Andrew is correct that there is still some doubt as to how
Lyon will deal with the question of baronial heraldic additaments after
28 November 2004. At one time, Lord Lyon Blair was said to be of the
opinion that the lack of any official register of the transfer of
baronies after 24 Nov 04 would make it impossible to determine with
certainty who was actually entitled to the dignity. I have heard that
he has since reconsidered the matter, but regular reading of the
Heraldry Society of Scotland forum does not indicate that he has made a
firm policy decision on the issue. It would be interesting to know if
he has taken any actions since 24 November that would indicate one way
or the other which way he intends to go.

As for seeking an interlocutor from the Court of Session if Lyon
refuses to grant the additaments, wouldn't a decision to grant a cap of
maintenance, etc., be an exercise of Lyon's ministerial rather than
judicial powers?

Joseph McMillan
Andrew
2005-09-22 08:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
This is the
interpretation of the law contained in the Explanatory Notes to the Act
prepared by the Scottish Executive. These Notes state in paragraph 198
that "the retained dignity of baron will no longer attach to the land.
It will be a floating dignity which can be bought and sold ... and may
be bequeathed by will in the normal way. If a baron dies intestate, the
barony would transmit to the eldest son or other heir in accordance
with the pre-1964 rules on intestate succession which were preserved by
the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 for "any title, coat of arms, honour
or dignity transmissible on the death of the holder".
Dear Mr.McMillan

I confirm that I fully respect you opinion, but you have omitted
something very important.

This explanation is not a Law. Since this explanation is contradicts to
Prevention (Honours) Abuses Act 1925 such a explanation is simply
incirrect. The term 'floating dignity' may be accepted as correct,
since a reminders provided succession of such a dignity with no
restriction that this dignity must be succeed by bload ( family)
relative.

Since a 'dignity' of Baron is a title of honour and a title of
nobility, as established by Crown Charters of creation and was
confirmed many time by proper Courts of Law (and it is not may be
questioned), it may not be bought and sold, and even in former time it
was impossible to buy such a dignity.

It was possible before 28 November 2004( at the time when Feudal Tenure
System was in force) to seek ennoblement (under the rank of a Baron) on
basis of holding of free barony (feudal jurisdiction). It because a
holder of a free barony was a direct vassal of the Crown. Crown was a
feudal Superior. By virtue of Feudal System a Baron's status was
amongst Feudal Nobility under 'feudal stairs' provision.

Since free baronies ( meant baronial jurisdiction) was abolished, a
Crown no longer feudal Superior, a holder of a free barony (now it
meant only papers to former a free barony)is no longer a direct vassal
of the Crown. Since 28 November 2004 the former free barony lost its
nobilitating effect, because the Feudal System vas abolished.

Since a Lord Lyon grant before 28 November 2004 a confirmation upon
somebody under the dignity of Baron ( together with baronial
additaments)
such a act technically confirms that such a person holds a free barony
before 28 November 2004 and therefore holds a Barony ( meant a dignity
of Baron in its honorific sense). The AFT Act 2000 retained a dignity
of Baron for its holders. The act of nobilitation ( by recognition of a
person under the rank of Baron and granting proper heraldic
additaments)was complited at the time when proper Warrant (or even
Interlocutor)was signed and ED was payd to Royal Treasure.The Letters
Patent (a document with perpetual effect) is a formal confirmation by
the Crown.

How Lord Lyon will recognise somebody who bought papers to former free
barony after 28 November 2004 as a Baron, since the nobilitating effect
of Feudal Tenure system ( derived from the 'feudal stairs' of relation
between Crown, as High Superior and Holder of a free barony, as its
Direct Vassal)was ceased to exist since 28 November 2004, and free
barony (a baronial jurisdiction)ceased to exist from the same date?

Even if somebody will buy a papers to former free barony, such a papers
is no longer give a possibility to be ennobled on the basis of holding
of such a papers, and give not any right to adopt and use a dignity of
Baron.

If somebody who holds a 'dignity' of a Baron will try to sell it to
anybody, he must be prosecuted by the terms of Prevention (Honours) Act
1925 (even in cause that such a dignity may not be sold or bought even
hypothetically, meant such a try to transfer make no any legal results
in any cause).

The AFT Act 2000 is no single regulation of baronial status. There are
a many other valid legal norms ( and not affected by this Act)
pertaining a status of a dignity of a Baron.
Post by Joseph McMillan
...and so on.
("Usequequo, domine?" means "How long, O Lord?", which seemed apropos.)
May a layman who has struggled to understand the implications of this
Act try to help out in breaking what seems to be an endless spiral?
The relevant portion of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act
****
63 Baronies and other dignities and offices
(1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege
incidental to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but
nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity
or office (whether or not of feudal origin).
(2) When, by this Act, an estate held in barony ceases to exist
as a feudal estate, the dignity of baron, though retained, shall not
attach to the land; and on and after the appointed day any such dignity
shall be, and shall be transferable only as, incorporeal heritable
property (and shall not be an interest in land for the purposes of the
Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (c.33) or a right as respects
which a deed can be recorded in the Register of Sasines).
(3) Where there is registered, before the appointed day, a
heritable security over an estate to which is attached the dignity of
baron, the security shall on and after that day (until discharge)
affect-
(a) in the case of an estate of dominium utile, both the dignity of
baron and the land; and
(b) in any other case, the dignity of baron.
(4) In this section-
"conveyancing privilege" includes any privilege in relation to
prescription;
"dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any
heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity; and
"registered" has the same meaning as in Part 4 of this Act.
***
If I understand the point of contention correctly, Andrew contends that
after the appointed day (which was 28 November 2004) it is no longer
possible to buy or sell the title of baron. As I read his statements,
he adduces three basic, somewhat interlocked, arguments in support of
this position. First, he argues that the owner of a baronial
jurisdiction even before 28 November could only obtain the rank of
baron as a "title of dignity, state and honour" by virtue of a grant of
arms from Lord Lyon that includes baronial additaments and addresses
the grantee as "Baron of X." Secondly, he says that the fact that the
Act now prohibits the recording of transfers of baronies in either the
Land Register or the Register of Sasines, he says, means the Crown no
longer recognizes the legitimacy of such transfers between living
persons, only through the process of inheritance. Feudal tenure
(therefore superiority and jurisdiction) was abolished
and the Crown is no longer feudal Superior to a holder of former
baronial jurisdictions (in meaning holders of papers). Thirdly, he
contends that severing the barony from holding of the associated land
places the barony on the same footing as titles of honor and therefore
subject to the same laws of succession, which do not admit of sale.
Scottish barony titles can still be bought and sold. This is the
interpretation of the law contained in the Explanatory Notes to the Act
prepared by the Scottish Executive. These Notes state in paragraph 198
that "the retained dignity of baron will no longer attach to the land.
It will be a floating dignity which can be bought and sold ... and may
be bequeathed by will in the normal way. If a baron dies intestate, the
barony would transmit to the eldest son or other heir in accordance
with the pre-1964 rules on intestate succession which were preserved by
the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 for "any title, coat of arms, honour
or dignity transmissible on the death of the holder".
The first sentence seems clear enough: "It [the 'dignity of a
baron']...can be bought and sold." The second sentence, in which the
rules of succession to other titles and honors are applied to baronies,
states that these apply only in case a baron dies intestate.
Otherwise, he is free to sell the dignity or to bequeath it by will as
he pleases.
(An aside: I'm not certain, but might some of the confusion on this
point arise from the Act's statement that the "dignity of a baron...
shall be transferable only as incorporeal heritable property"? To the
non-specialist, this might imply that the property can be inherited, as
opposed to bought and sold, but "heritable property" in this case is
merely the approximate equivalent in Scottish law to "real property" in
English law. As HM Revenue explains it: "Heritable property consists
of land, and things built on, or attached to it. Corporeal heritable
property includes land, buildings, crops and growing timber.
Incorporeal heritable property includes bonds or securities over land."
Another example of incorporeal heritable property is the right of
salmon fishing. The opposite of heritable property is not
non-heritable but movable, or, as English law terms it, "personal
property."
Andrew's argument that the use of the style of "baron" as a rank of
nobility was dependent on recognition by Lord Lyon seems to me to be a
red herring. A baron became a baron by being the tenant-in-chief of
lands that had been erected by crown charter into a barony. There must
have been hundreds of barons over the centuries who have never bothered
to petition Lord Lyon for arms; their right to style themselves as
barons and (at one time) to sit in the Scottish Parliament and hold
barony courts did not depend on Lyon's sanction. Indeed, there would
be little sense in the Act's preserving the saleability of the dignity
of baron if the purchaser would be unable to use the style and enjoy
what minor precedence comes with it.
I do think Andrew is correct that there is still some doubt as to how
Lyon will deal with the question of baronial heraldic additaments after
28 November 2004. At one time, Lord Lyon Blair was said to be of the
opinion that the lack of any official register of the transfer of
baronies after 24 Nov 04 would make it impossible to determine with
certainty who was actually entitled to the dignity. I have heard that
he has since reconsidered the matter, but regular reading of the
Heraldry Society of Scotland forum does not indicate that he has made a
firm policy decision on the issue. It would be interesting to know if
he has taken any actions since 24 November that would indicate one way
or the other which way he intends to go.
As for seeking an interlocutor from the Court of Session if Lyon
refuses to grant the additaments, wouldn't a decision to grant a cap of
maintenance, etc., be an exercise of Lyon's ministerial rather than
judicial powers?
Joseph McMillan
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-22 16:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Dear Mr.McMillan
I confirm that I fully respect you opinion, but you have omitted
something very important.
This explanation is not a Law. Since this explanation is contradicts to
Prevention (Honours) Abuses Act 1925 such a explanation is simply
incirrect. The term 'floating dignity' may be accepted as correct,
since a reminders provided succession of such a dignity with no
restriction that this dignity must be succeed by bload ( family)
relative.
Incorrect. The Act makes it an offence to procure the GRANT (by the
Crown) of a title of honour, it does not make an offence of the SALE of
a title by one person to another, which is impossible in the case of
personal peerages of course. The Act makes it an offence 'to procure
the grant of a dignity or title or honour to any person'. I have
already pointed this out.

You are talking nonsense.

Graham Senior-Milne
Joseph McMillan
2005-09-22 19:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Post by Andrew
Dear Mr.McMillan
I confirm that I fully respect you opinion, but you have omitted
something very important.
This explanation is not a Law. Since this explanation is contradicts to
Prevention (Honours) Abuses Act 1925 such a explanation is simply
incirrect. The term 'floating dignity' may be accepted as correct,
since a reminders provided succession of such a dignity with no
restriction that this dignity must be succeed by bload ( family)
relative.
Incorrect. The Act makes it an offence to procure the GRANT (by the
Crown) of a title of honour, it does not make an offence of the SALE of
a title by one person to another, which is impossible in the case of
personal peerages of course. The Act makes it an offence 'to procure
the grant of a dignity or title or honour to any person'. I have
already pointed this out.
And, as explained in the various reports prepared in connection with
the AFT (Scotland) Act, a feudal barony involves no grant from the
Crown. Specifically, the "Report on the Abolition of the Feudal
System" states that "The acquisition of a barony does not involve any
exercise of the Royal prerogative in favour of the acquirer or his or
her ancestors." As honors are exercises of the royal prerogative, it
follows that the acquisition of a barony does not constitute the
involve the granting of an honor.

I would be interested in seeing Andrew's citations of court cases
saying that a feudal barony involves a title of honor or nobility. I
did a Lexis-Nexis search of UK cases back into the early 1800s and can
find no such case. I did find that Lord Mackay of the Court of
Session, in one of the iterations of the Maclean of Ardgour vs Maclean
case, expressing skepticism that Lord Lyon was justified in referring
in letters patent to the nobility of a family, even though in the case
at hand the family involved held the barony of Argour.

Joseph McMillan
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-22 23:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
I would be interested in seeing Andrew's citations of court cases
saying that a feudal barony involves a title of honor or nobility. I
did a Lexis-Nexis search of UK cases back into the early 1800s and can
find no such case. I did find that Lord Mackay of the Court of
Session, in one of the iterations of the Maclean of Ardgour vs Maclean
case, expressing skepticism that Lord Lyon was justified in referring
in letters patent to the nobility of a family, even though in the case
at hand the family involved held the barony of Argour.
See ruling of the Lyon Court on 26th February 1943 ('Register of
Genealogies', Vol. IV, p. 26) which states that 'with regard to the
words 'untitled nobility' employed in certain recent
birthbrieves in relation to the Minor Baronage of Scotland,
Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and
have been both in this nobiliary Court and in the Court of
Session recognised as a "titled nobility" and that the
estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the
ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland').

I would suggest that if someone is part of the 'titled nobility', they
must, by definition, hold a title of nobility.

Graham Senior-Milne
Joseph McMillan
2005-09-23 00:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Post by Joseph McMillan
I would be interested in seeing Andrew's citations of court cases
saying that a feudal barony involves a title of honor or nobility. I
did a Lexis-Nexis search of UK cases back into the early 1800s and can
find no such case. I did find that Lord Mackay of the Court of
Session, in one of the iterations of the Maclean of Ardgour vs Maclean
case, expressing skepticism that Lord Lyon was justified in referring
in letters patent to the nobility of a family, even though in the case
at hand the family involved held the barony of Argour.
See ruling of the Lyon Court on 26th February 1943 ('Register of
Genealogies', Vol. IV, p. 26) which states that 'with regard to the
words 'untitled nobility' employed in certain recent
birthbrieves in relation to the Minor Baronage of Scotland,
Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and
have been both in this nobiliary Court and in the Court of
Session recognised as a "titled nobility" and that the
estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the
ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland').
I withdraw my question. While I would be interested in seeing the
Court of Session decisions (did Lyon Grant provide citations to them in
this ruling?), I see that the report on abolition of feudal tenure to
which I was referring agrees with Andrew and Mr. Senior-Milne that the
acquisition of a barony has the effect of ennobling the
owner--"remarkable as it may seem," in the words of the report.

Joseph McMillan
Andrew
2005-09-23 06:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mr. McMillan,
From your previous posts I see that your position is not
'interesting' but a very reasonable ( in my opinion, of course)

My language is poor and a lot of thing very heavy understandable. But I
will try to explain.
It was request by the holder of free barony of Spynie that he may be
considered as Peer on basis of holding his free barony, because upon a
holder of a free barony (other names: baronial jurisdiction or feudal
barony), by virtue of such a baronial jurisdiction automatically
conferred 'Titulum, Honorem, Ordinem at Statum liberi Baronis' -
Title, Honour, Rank and State of Baron.

It was confirmed by the Committee for Privilegies that free baronies
confer upon their holders Title, Honour, Rank and State of Baron,
because such baronies have a nobilitating effect by virtue of the
Feudal System custom (because they are direct vassals of the Crown).
But such a title of Baron may not be considered as Lordship of
Parliament, because such a title was not created under the term
'Titulum, Honorem, Ordinem at Statum Domini Parlamenti' whereas
such a title derived from holding of a baronial feudal jurisdiction
over territorial entity (free barony).

But, for example, with barony of Torphichen was another situation. It
was conferred (with same reminder as any free barony 'to his heirs
and assignees of baronial jurisdiction') upon John Sandilands (former
Prior of Order of Malta) by Mary, Queen of Scots. It was a free barony,
but (by virtue of Sandilands former authomatical place in the
Parliament as a Prior of the Order of Malta) the Charter of creation
included a regulation that said holder of a barony of Torphichen
retains his place in the Parliament. By virtue of this wording the
barony of Torphichen thereafter was considered as Peerage of Scotland.
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Post by Joseph McMillan
I would be interested in seeing Andrew's citations of court cases
saying that a feudal barony involves a title of honor or nobility. I
did a Lexis-Nexis search of UK cases back into the early 1800s and can
find no such case. I did find that Lord Mackay of the Court of
Session, in one of the iterations of the Maclean of Ardgour vs Maclean
case, expressing skepticism that Lord Lyon was justified in referring
in letters patent to the nobility of a family, even though in the case
at hand the family involved held the barony of Argour.
See ruling of the Lyon Court on 26th February 1943 ('Register of
Genealogies', Vol. IV, p. 26) which states that 'with regard to the
words 'untitled nobility' employed in certain recent
birthbrieves in relation to the Minor Baronage of Scotland,
Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and
have been both in this nobiliary Court and in the Court of
Session recognised as a "titled nobility" and that the
estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the
ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland').
I withdraw my question. While I would be interested in seeing the
Court of Session decisions (did Lyon Grant provide citations to them in
this ruling?), I see that the report on abolition of feudal tenure to
which I was referring agrees with Andrew and Mr. Senior-Milne that the
acquisition of a barony has the effect of ennobling the
owner--"remarkable as it may seem," in the words of the report.
Joseph McMillan
Joseph McMillan
2005-09-23 13:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
It was confirmed by the Committee for Privilegies that free baronies
confer upon their holders Title, Honour, Rank and State of Baron,
because such baronies have a nobilitating effect by virtue of the
Feudal System custom (because they are direct vassals of the Crown).
But such a title of Baron may not be considered as Lordship of
Parliament, because such a title was not created under the term
'Titulum, Honorem, Ordinem at Statum Domini Parlamenti' whereas
such a title derived from holding of a baronial feudal jurisdiction
over territorial entity (free barony).
Based on looking over various things, including this (thank you), I
guess I wouldn't try to argue the case that barons are not "noble," but
I would point out that there are still some inconsistencies and quirks
that need to be taken into account.

First, the official explanation of the effect of the AFT(S) Act says
that the transfer of a barony (even before 24 Nov 04) did not involve
an exercise of the royal prerogative, which is obviously correct. On
the other hand, the report on abolition of feudal tenure says the
purchase of a barony had the effect of ennobling the purchaser. The
idea that someone can be ennobled without an exercise of the royal
prerogative seems inconsistent with the doctrine that only the
sovereign can ennoble or, for that matter, confer titles, honors, etc.,
which the Spynie decision says go with a barony.

Secondly, the acts defining the powers of Lord Lyon say that he is to
"visit" the arms of "noblemen, barons, and gentlemen." This implies to
me that barons--or at least some barons--are not noblemen. Otherwise,
the phrase would have been simply "noblemen and gentlemen." For that
matter, if a gentleman is a kind of minor noble, then the acts would
have been worded simply "noblemen." Unless there is a non-apparent
distinction between noblemen and those men who are nobles, similar to
that between heritable property and property that is inheritable.

Thirdly, the recent acts and their interpretations are careful to refer
to baronies only as "dignities," not as "honors." This implies that
there is a difference, and that a feudal barony is now a dignity but
not an honor.

Joseph McMillan
Andrew
2005-09-23 17:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by Andrew
It was confirmed by the Committee for Privilegies that free baronies
confer upon their holders Title, Honour, Rank and State of Baron,
because such baronies have a nobilitating effect by virtue of the
Feudal System custom (because they are direct vassals of the Crown).
But such a title of Baron may not be considered as Lordship of
Parliament, because such a title was not created under the term
'Titulum, Honorem, Ordinem at Statum Domini Parlamenti' whereas
such a title derived from holding of a baronial feudal jurisdiction
over territorial entity (free barony).
Based on looking over various things, including this (thank you), I
guess I wouldn't try to argue the case that barons are not "noble," but
I would point out that there are still some inconsistencies and quirks
that need to be taken into account.
First, the official explanation of the effect of the AFT(S) Act says
that the transfer of a barony (even before 24 Nov 04) did not involve
an exercise of the royal prerogative, which is obviously correct. On
the other hand, the report on abolition of feudal tenure says the
purchase of a barony had the effect of ennobling the purchaser. The
idea that someone can be ennobled without an exercise of the royal
prerogative seems inconsistent with the doctrine that only the
sovereign can ennoble or, for that matter, confer titles, honors, etc.,
which the Spynie decision says go with a barony.
Ennoblement of the 'purchaser' of a free barony at the time when such a
free barony (other names:baronial jurisdiction,feudal barony) was
existent (therefore before 28.11.2004) derived from the 'feudal stairs'
relationship between the Crown (the High Feudal Superior) and the
holder of a free barony ( direct Vassal of the Crown) and therefore a
member of a Feudal Nobility, as a traditional Law under a Feudal
System. The official confirmation of ennoblement of such a holder of
such a baronial jurisdiction under the rank and dignity of a Baron is
technically derived from a recognition of a new holder (by the way of
acknowledgement and agreement of his interest) by the Crown (who is
High Feudal Superior, creator and grantor of such a feudal
jurisdiction) through the official office for Scotland - Lord Lyon
King of Arms.
The AFT Act stated, that in the wording 'dignity of Baron' a term
''dignity' includes any quality or precedence associated with, and
any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity'. Since in the
Sovereign's acts - Crown Charters of creation or confirmation- for a
holder of a free barony established following qualities: ''Titulum,
Honorem, Ordinem at Statum liberi Baronis' - Title, Honour, Rank
and State of Baron', the 'dignity' in the AFT Act has exactly the same
meaning that was before this Act.
Post by Joseph McMillan
Secondly, the acts defining the powers of Lord Lyon say that he is to
"visit" the arms of "noblemen, barons, and gentlemen." This implies to
me that barons--or at least some barons--are not noblemen. Otherwise,
the phrase would have been simply "noblemen and gentlemen." For that
matter, if a gentleman is a kind of minor noble, then the acts would
have been worded simply "noblemen." Unless there is a non-apparent
distinction between noblemen and those men who are nobles, similar to
that between heritable property and property that is inheritable.
Thirdly, the recent acts and their interpretations are careful to refer
to baronies only as "dignities," not as "honors." This implies that
there is a difference, and that a feudal barony is now a dignity but
not an honor.
Joseph McMillan
Andrew
2005-09-20 06:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from your friend the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?
Graham Senior-Milne
PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself
Dear Baron of Mordington,

It is very strange to see again the absolutely same your post.The last
your sentence is again and again about yourself. I ask you:Where in any
my post I stated that Lord Lyon is my friend? Please, show me it.Do you
able to read?

Do you understand that not only (not single) AFT Scotland Act dealing
with baronies of Scotland but a many of other current valid legal norm?
Do you understand that AFT Scotland Act do not abolish any such a legal
norms? Do you understand that since a title and dignity of Baron is a
title of nobility and of honour as was legally established by proper
Courts of Law, and therefore is a norm of current legislation? Do you
understand that a title of nobility (of honour) is incorporeal
hereditament (the proper form of incorporeal heritable property)? Do
you understand that the nobility may not be sold and may not be bought?
Do you understand that the Prevention Abuse Act 1925 dealing with any
title of honour and dignity?

Do you understand that the term "barony" used in two senses? Do you
understand that the term "barony" used in the AFT Scotland Act in
conveyancing sense? Do you understand that AFT Scotland Act do not
dealing with anything except abolishing of feudal baronial jurisdiction
and therefore separated former feudal baronies (deeds of papers) from
the landholding?

Do you understand that nobilitating effect of paper deed to former
feudal barony ceased to exist from 28 November 2004 because the Feudal
Tenure System (under virtue of which this nobilitating effect was
existent) was abolished on this day? Do you understand that preserving
clause for the 'dignity of Baron' mentioned in the AFT Scotland Act
is for a 'dignity of Baron' that was already existent (in meaning
recognised upon somebody before the 28.11.2004) on the Appointed Day?

Do you understand that if you will sell paper deed to your former
feudal barony after 28.11.2004 the buyer will not obtain the right to
be ennobled, because the procedure of infeft (that is obligatory for
ennoblement, because the Crown must be satisfied in it, as feudal
Superior) is caused to exist already? Do you understand that if you
will sell paper deed to your former feudal barony after 28.11.2004 you
will retain your nobility and your dignity of Baron (if you were
recognised by the Crown before the 28.11.2004) because it was yours
before the AFT Act Came into force? Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will not become a
noble by the virtue of such a deed, because the Feudal Tenure System
(that in former time conveyed noble status on the holders of baronial
jurisdictions) is caused to exist. Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will obtain no more
than several sheets of paper and no any real right for baronial
additament and to a noble title of Baron? Do you understand that such a
buyer (if he has proper connection with Scotland) may be granted arms
by Lord Lyon by virtue of his ancestry or his residence, but certainly
may not be granted Baronial arms by the virtue of buying of a paper
deed to a former feudal barony after 28.11.2004?

Dear Mordington! I sure that you understand everything mentioned above.
The proof that you been recognised by the Lord Lyon (by the Crown) that
you infeft in your barony as on date of 11.11.2004 (before the AD).
I have seen you site where you stated a lot of useful information. But
some places in it (for example your wrong vision of status of English
feudal baronies) is makes all the information (even absolutely true) is
doubtful. Dear Mordington! Please, understand that since Feudal Tenure
System was abolished in England, there are irrelevant if Baronies by
Tenure was abolished or not. Since Feudal Tenure was abolished such a
'baronies' (in conveyancing meaning of this term), even if they
longer existent, has no any nobilitating effect. Any nobilitating
effect of such a baronies caused to exist at 1660. But the Act 1660
certainly has not any preservation clause for a dignity of Baron
derived from such a barony (in conveyancing meaning of this term),
therefore holders of such a baronies (after this Act 1660 came into
force) retain no a dignity of Baron ( in meaning as a title of honour).
But they, accordingly with English system, considered as gentry ( if
they was not elevated by the Crown to peerage).
But you have a lot of positive energy and you need to direct it into
the proper way. My king suggestion, that you energy may be directed
to establish for Barons of Scotland (former feudal barons) a status
amongst Peerage of Scotland (because for now their precedence is very
strange and based on the Baronetcy Warrant). It is certainly possible
to legally establish that all Scottish baronies pre-dated 1707 gave
rights to their holders attend a Parliament, therefore a right to be
considered as Peers of Scotland. And, no doubt, that Union Act
preserved this privilege. But, for sure it is possible for all Barons
of Scotland to seek official recognition of their proper normal
precedence (above Baronets and in the same grade with a Lords of
Parliament, immediately below them) and including into the Roll of
Peerage, or in a bad cause, of establishment of The Roll of the
Baronage of Scotland. Abovementioned is possible. But it must be proper
petition unto the Sovereign and must be proper support from people like
Honourable Sir Crispin Agnew,Bt. There are about 150 living people who
holds a dignity of a Baron. Meant ennobled under such a dignity by way
of recognition by the Crown, or succeeded such a dignity of Baron by
the order and provisions of succession). This is a not so many and may
not be more then existed on the date 28.11.2004. But they are not poor
people if it will be necessary to establish proper rights in the Court
of Session before the Petition to the Crown. It was not in Scotland
yet "Berkeley cause" in the Court of Session, it is not already
authomatical parliamentary right for hereditary peers, there is a
Barony of Torphichen in the Peerage of Scotland (and a lot of
precedence with the same creations, but now extinct), etc. All this
events are very useful and helpful for this purpose. If you will
direct your positive energy into this way and will consolidate Barons
for this matter it will be much more effective and for sure you will
meet with success.
Again with king regards,
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-21 14:50:52 UTC
Permalink
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?


Graham Senior-Milne


PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself"
Andrew
2005-09-20 06:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from your friend the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?
Graham Senior-Milne
PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself
Dear Baron of Mordington,

It is very strange to see again the absolutely same your post.The last
your sentence is again and again about yourself. I ask you:Where in any
my post I stated that Lord Lyon is my friend? Please, show me it.Do you
able to read?

Do you understand that not only (not single) AFT Scotland Act dealing
with baronies of Scotland but a many of other current valid legal norm?
Do you understand that AFT Scotland Act do not abolish any such a legal
norms? Do you understand that since a title and dignity of Baron is a
title of nobility and of honour as was legally established by proper
Courts of Law, and therefore is a norm of current legislation? Do you
understand that a title of nobility (of honour) is incorporeal
hereditament (the proper form of incorporeal heritable property)? Do
you understand that the nobility may not be sold and may not be bought?
Do you understand that the Prevention Abuse Act 1925 dealing with any
title of honour and dignity?

Do you understand that the term "barony" used in two senses? Do you
understand that the term "barony" used in the AFT Scotland Act in
conveyancing sense? Do you understand that AFT Scotland Act do not
dealing with anything except abolishing of feudal baronial jurisdiction
and therefore separated former feudal baronies (deeds of papers) from
the landholding?

Do you understand that nobilitating effect of paper deed to former
feudal barony ceased to exist from 28 November 2004 because the Feudal
Tenure System (under virtue of which this nobilitating effect was
existent) was abolished on this day? Do you understand that preserving
clause for the 'dignity of Baron' mentioned in the AFT Scotland Act
is for a 'dignity of Baron' that was already existent (in meaning
recognised upon somebody before the 28.11.2004) on the Appointed Day?

Do you understand that if you will sell paper deed to your former
feudal barony after 28.11.2004 the buyer will not obtain the right to
be ennobled, because the procedure of infeft (that is obligatory for
ennoblement, because the Crown must be satisfied in it, as feudal
Superior) is caused to exist already? Do you understand that if you
will sell paper deed to your former feudal barony after 28.11.2004 you
will retain your nobility and your dignity of Baron (if you were
recognised by the Crown before the 28.11.2004) because it was yours
before the AFT Act Came into force? Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will not become a
noble by the virtue of such a deed, because the Feudal Tenure System
(that in former time conveyed noble status on the holders of baronial
jurisdictions) is caused to exist. Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will obtain no more
than several sheets of paper and no any real right for baronial
additament and to a noble title of Baron? Do you understand that such a
buyer (if he has proper connection with Scotland) may be granted arms
by Lord Lyon by virtue of his ancestry or his residence, but certainly
may not be granted Baronial arms by the virtue of buying of a paper
deed to a former feudal barony after 28.11.2004?

Dear Mordington! I sure that you understand everything mentioned above.
The proof that you been recognised by the Lord Lyon (by the Crown) that
you infeft in your barony as on date of 11.11.2004 (before the AD).
I have seen you site where you stated a lot of useful information. But
some places in it (for example your wrong vision of status of English
feudal baronies) is makes all the information (even absolutely true) is
doubtful. Dear Mordington! Please, understand that since Feudal Tenure
System was abolished in England, there are irrelevant if Baronies by
Tenure was abolished or not. Since Feudal Tenure was abolished such a
'baronies' (in conveyancing meaning of this term), even if they
longer existent, has no any nobilitating effect. Any nobilitating
effect of such a baronies caused to exist at 1660. But the Act 1660
certainly has not any preservation clause for a dignity of Baron
derived from such a barony (in conveyancing meaning of this term),
therefore holders of such a baronies (after this Act 1660 came into
force) retain no a dignity of Baron ( in meaning as a title of honour).
But they, accordingly with English system, considered as gentry ( if
they was not elevated by the Crown to peerage).
But you have a lot of positive energy and you need to direct it into
the proper way. My king suggestion, that you energy may be directed
to establish for Barons of Scotland (former feudal barons) a status
amongst Peerage of Scotland (because for now their precedence is very
strange and based on the Baronetcy Warrant). It is certainly possible
to legally establish that all Scottish baronies pre-dated 1707 gave
rights to their holders attend a Parliament, therefore a right to be
considered as Peers of Scotland. And, no doubt, that Union Act
preserved this privilege. But, for sure it is possible for all Barons
of Scotland to seek official recognition of their proper normal
precedence (above Baronets and in the same grade with a Lords of
Parliament, immediately below them) and including into the Roll of
Peerage, or in a bad cause, of establishment of The Roll of the
Baronage of Scotland. Abovementioned is possible. But it must be proper
petition unto the Sovereign and must be proper support from people like
Honourable Sir Crispin Agnew,Bt. There are about 150 living people who
holds a dignity of a Baron. Meant ennobled under such a dignity by way
of recognition by the Crown, or succeeded such a dignity of Baron by
the order and provisions of succession). This is a not so many and may
not be more then existed on the date 28.11.2004. But they are not poor
people if it will be necessary to establish proper rights in the Court
of Session before the Petition to the Crown. It was not in Scotland
yet "Berkeley cause" in the Court of Session, it is not already
authomatical parliamentary right for hereditary peers, there is a
Barony of Torphichen in the Peerage of Scotland (and a lot of
precedents with the same creations, but now extinct), etc. All this
events are very useful and helpful for this purpose. If you will
direct your positive energy into this way and will consolidate Barons
for this matter it will be much more effective and for sure you will
meet with success.
Again with king regards,
Andrew
2005-09-20 06:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from your friend the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?
Graham Senior-Milne
PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself
Dear Baron of Mordington,

It is very strange to see again the absolutely same your post.The last
your sentence is again and again about yourself. I ask you:Where in any
my post I stated that Lord Lyon is my friend? Please, show me it.Do you
able to read?

Do you understand that not only (not single) AFT Scotland Act dealing
with baronies of Scotland but a many of other current valid legal norm?
Do you understand that AFT Scotland Act do not abolish any such a legal
norms? Do you understand that since a title and dignity of Baron is a
title of nobility and of honour as was legally established by proper
Courts of Law, and therefore is a norm of current legislation? Do you
understand that a title of nobility (of honour) is incorporeal
hereditament (the proper form of incorporeal heritable property)? Do
you understand that the nobility may not be sold and may not be bought?
Do you understand that the Prevention Abuse Act 1925 dealing with any
title of honour and dignity?

Do you understand that the term "barony" used in two senses? Do you
understand that the term "barony" used in the AFT Scotland Act in
conveyancing sense? Do you understand that AFT Scotland Act do not
dealing with anything except abolishing of feudal baronial jurisdiction
and therefore separated former feudal baronies (deeds of papers) from
the landholding?

Do you understand that nobilitating effect of paper deed to former
feudal barony ceased to exist from 28 November 2004 because the Feudal
Tenure System (under virtue of which this nobilitating effect was
existent) was abolished on this day? Do you understand that preserving
clause for the 'dignity of Baron' mentioned in the AFT Scotland Act
is for a 'dignity of Baron' that was already existent (in meaning
recognised upon somebody before the 28.11.2004) on the Appointed Day?

Do you understand that if you will sell paper deed to your former
feudal barony after 28.11.2004 the buyer will not obtain the right to
be ennobled, because the procedure of infeft (that is obligatory for
ennoblement, because the Crown must be satisfied in it, as feudal
Superior) is caused to exist already? Do you understand that if you
will sell paper deed to your former feudal barony after 28.11.2004 you
will retain your nobility and your dignity of Baron (if you were
recognised by the Crown before the 28.11.2004) because it was yours
before the AFT Act Came into force? Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will not become a
noble by the virtue of such a deed, because the Feudal Tenure System
(that in former time conveyed noble status on the holders of baronial
jurisdictions) is caused to exist. Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will obtain no more
than several sheets of paper and no any real right for baronial
additament and to a noble title of Baron? Do you understand that such a
buyer (if he has proper connection with Scotland) may be granted arms
by Lord Lyon by virtue of his ancestry or his residence, but certainly
may not be granted Baronial arms by the virtue of buying of a paper
deed to a former feudal barony after 28.11.2004?

Dear Mordington! I sure that you understand everything mentioned above.
The proof that you been recognised by the Lord Lyon (by the Crown) that
you infeft in your barony as on date of 11.11.2004 (before the AD).
I have seen you site where you stated a lot of useful information. But
some places in it (for example your wrong vision of status of English
feudal baronies) is makes all the information (even absolutely true) is
doubtful. Dear Mordington! Please, understand that since Feudal Tenure
System was abolished in England, there are irrelevant if Baronies by
Tenure was abolished or not. Since Feudal Tenure was abolished such a
'baronies' (in conveyancing meaning of this term), even if they
longer existent, has no any nobilitating effect. Any nobilitating
effect of such a baronies caused to exist at 1660. But the Act 1660
certainly has not any preservation clause for a dignity of Baron
derived from such a barony (in conveyancing meaning of this term),
therefore holders of such a baronies (after this Act 1660 came into
force) retain no a dignity of Baron ( in meaning as a title of honour).
But they, accordingly with English system, considered as gentry ( if
they was not elevated by the Crown to peerage).
But you have a lot of positive energy and you need to direct it into
the proper way. My king suggestion, that you energy may be directed
to establish for Barons of Scotland (former feudal barons) a status
amongst Peerage of Scotland (because for now their precedence is very
strange and based on the Baronetcy Warrant). It is certainly possible
to legally establish that all Scottish baronies pre-dated 1707 gave
rights to their holders attend a Parliament, therefore a right to be
considered as Peers of Scotland. And, no doubt, that Union Act
preserved this privilege. But, for sure it is possible for all Barons
of Scotland to seek official recognition of their proper normal
precedence (above Baronets and in the same grade with a Lords of
Parliament, immediately below them) and including into the Roll of
Peerage, or in a bad cause, of establishment of The Roll of the
Baronage of Scotland. Abovementioned is possible. But it must be proper
petition unto the Sovereign and must be proper support from people like
Honourable Sir Crispin Agnew,Bt. There are about 150 living people who
holds a dignity of a Baron. Meant ennobled under such a dignity by way
of recognition by the Crown, or succeeded such a dignity of Baron by
the order and provisions of succession). This is a not so many and may
not be more then existed on the date 28.11.2004. But they are not poor
people if it will be necessary to establish proper rights in the Court
of Session before the Petition to the Crown. It was not in Scotland
yet "Berkeley cause" in the Court of Session, it is not already
authomatical parliamentary right for hereditary peers, there is a
Barony of Torphichen in the Peerage of Scotland (and a lot of
precedents with the same creations, but now extinct), etc. All this
events are very useful and helpful for this purpose. If you will
direct your positive energy into this way and will consolidate Barons
for this matter it will be much more effective and for sure you will
meet with success.
Again with king regards,
Andrew
2005-09-20 09:51:48 UTC
Permalink
For the Much Honoured Baron of Mordington,


Legal status of a title of a Baron in Scotland after Abolition of
Feudal Tenure System.



The following norms of valid legislation must be observed to
understand, that the noble title of honour of a Baron may not be
obtained by purchasing of a deed to former feudal barony (baronial
jurisdiction), because a Feudal System (including baronial jurisdiction
and relationship between the Crown, as feudal superior and a Baron, as
direct vassal) was abolished on the Appointed Day. Therefore such a
title deed to former barony (several sheets of paper and map) has not
any nobilitating effect since Appointed Day. The ennoblement for
holders of baronial jurisdictions who was recognised by the Crown
(feudal superior) was already completed by virtue of Feudal System,
which conveyed a noble status for holders of baronial jurisdictions and
feudal offices. The dignity of Baron (noble title of honour) retained
by their holders as incorporeal heritable property (in similarity with
any other honourific titles). Therefore such form of incorporeal
heritable property is considered as incorporeal heriditament. But the
dignity of Baron certainly may not be bought and may not be sold,
because it is prohibited by the Law.

See below :


I ) Crown Charters of creation and confirmation of baronies:


Upon a holder of a free barony ( a baronial jurisdiction) conferred
'Titulum, Honorem, Ordinem at Statum liberi Baronis' - Title,
Honour, Rank and State of Baron. The remainders provided secession by
heirs ( no special restriction) and assignees of a free barony (of a
baronial jurisdiction).


II ) Judicially observation and confirmation in 'Spynie cause' by
the Committee of Privileges.

Confirmed that feudal baronies confers upon their holders noble Title,
Honour, Rank and State of Baron, because such a baronies has
nobilitating effect by virtue of Feudal System custom (because they are
direct vassals of the Crown), but such a titles may not be considered
as Lordships of Parliament.


III ) Judgment by the Lyon Court of date 26 February 1943:

'With regard to the words 'untitled nobility' employed in
certain recent birthbrieves in relation to the Minor Baronage
of Scotland, Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of
Scotland are, and have been both in this nobiliary Court and
in the Court of Session recognised as a "titled nobility" and
that the estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the
ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland'



IV ) AFT Scotland Act 200

1 Abolition on appointed day

The feudal system of land tenure, that is to say the entire system
whereby land is held by a
vassal on perpetual tenure from a superior is, on the
appointed day, abolished

63 Baronies and other dignities and offices

(1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental to,
barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in this
Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office
(whether or not of feudal origin).
(2) 2) When, by this Act, an estate held in barony ceases to exist as a
feudal estate, the dignity of baron, though retained, shall not attach
to the land; and on and after the appointed day any such dignity shall
be, and shall be transferable only as, incorporeal heritable property
(and shall not be an interest in land for the purposes of the Land
Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (c.33) or a right as respects which a
deed can be recorded in the Register of Sasines).

(4) - "conveyancing privilege" includes any privilege in relation to
prescription;
- "dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any
heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity;

62 Jurisdiction and prerogative of Lord Lyon

Nothing in this Act shall be taken to supersede or impair the
jurisdiction or prerogative of the Lord Lyon King of Arms




V) Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, 1925.
No any title of honour or dignity may be bought or sold

VI) Succession (Scotland) Act 1964

Preserves the pre-1964 rules for "any title, coat of arms, honour
or dignity transmissible on the death of the holder.

With very kind regards,
Post by Andrew
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You still have not quoted anything from the 2000 Act which supports
your assertions. Please do so. Neither have you said that you will
obtain a letter from your friend the Lord Lyon. Why is this I wonder?
Graham Senior-Milne
PS And would you mind having the courtesy to identify yourself
Dear Baron of Mordington,
It is very strange to see again the absolutely same your post.The last
your sentence is again and again about yourself. I ask you:Where in any
my post I stated that Lord Lyon is my friend? Please, show me it.Do you
able to read?
Do you understand that not only (not single) AFT Scotland Act dealing
with baronies of Scotland but a many of other current valid legal norm?
Do you understand that AFT Scotland Act do not abolish any such a legal
norms? Do you understand that since a title and dignity of Baron is a
title of nobility and of honour as was legally established by proper
Courts of Law, and therefore is a norm of current legislation? Do you
understand that a title of nobility (of honour) is incorporeal
hereditament (the proper form of incorporeal heritable property)? Do
you understand that the nobility may not be sold and may not be bought?
Do you understand that the Prevention Abuse Act 1925 dealing with any
title of honour and dignity?
Do you understand that the term "barony" used in two senses? Do you
understand that the term "barony" used in the AFT Scotland Act in
conveyancing sense? Do you understand that AFT Scotland Act do not
dealing with anything except abolishing of feudal baronial jurisdiction
and therefore separated former feudal baronies (deeds of papers) from
the landholding?
Do you understand that nobilitating effect of paper deed to former
feudal barony ceased to exist from 28 November 2004 because the Feudal
Tenure System (under virtue of which this nobilitating effect was
existent) was abolished on this day? Do you understand that preserving
clause for the 'dignity of Baron' mentioned in the AFT Scotland Act
is for a 'dignity of Baron' that was already existent (in meaning
recognised upon somebody before the 28.11.2004) on the Appointed Day?
Do you understand that if you will sell paper deed to your former
feudal barony after 28.11.2004 the buyer will not obtain the right to
be ennobled, because the procedure of infeft (that is obligatory for
ennoblement, because the Crown must be satisfied in it, as feudal
Superior) is caused to exist already? Do you understand that if you
will sell paper deed to your former feudal barony after 28.11.2004 you
will retain your nobility and your dignity of Baron (if you were
recognised by the Crown before the 28.11.2004) because it was yours
before the AFT Act Came into force? Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will not become a
noble by the virtue of such a deed, because the Feudal Tenure System
(that in former time conveyed noble status on the holders of baronial
jurisdictions) is caused to exist. Do you understand that the buyer of
such a paper deed who bought it after 28.11.2004 will obtain no more
than several sheets of paper and no any real right for baronial
additament and to a noble title of Baron? Do you understand that such a
buyer (if he has proper connection with Scotland) may be granted arms
by Lord Lyon by virtue of his ancestry or his residence, but certainly
may not be granted Baronial arms by the virtue of buying of a paper
deed to a former feudal barony after 28.11.2004?
Dear Mordington! I sure that you understand everything mentioned above.
The proof that you been recognised by the Lord Lyon (by the Crown) that
you infeft in your barony as on date of 11.11.2004 (before the AD).
I have seen you site where you stated a lot of useful information. But
some places in it (for example your wrong vision of status of English
feudal baronies) is makes all the information (even absolutely true) is
doubtful. Dear Mordington! Please, understand that since Feudal Tenure
System was abolished in England, there are irrelevant if Baronies by
Tenure was abolished or not. Since Feudal Tenure was abolished such a
'baronies' (in conveyancing meaning of this term), even if they
longer existent, has no any nobilitating effect. Any nobilitating
effect of such a baronies caused to exist at 1660. But the Act 1660
certainly has not any preservation clause for a dignity of Baron
derived from such a barony (in conveyancing meaning of this term),
therefore holders of such a baronies (after this Act 1660 came into
force) retain no a dignity of Baron ( in meaning as a title of honour).
But they, accordingly with English system, considered as gentry ( if
they was not elevated by the Crown to peerage).
But you have a lot of positive energy and you need to direct it into
the proper way. My king suggestion, that you energy may be directed
to establish for Barons of Scotland (former feudal barons) a status
amongst Peerage of Scotland (because for now their precedence is very
strange and based on the Baronetcy Warrant). It is certainly possible
to legally establish that all Scottish baronies pre-dated 1707 gave
rights to their holders attend a Parliament, therefore a right to be
considered as Peers of Scotland. And, no doubt, that Union Act
preserved this privilege. But, for sure it is possible for all Barons
of Scotland to seek official recognition of their proper normal
precedence (above Baronets and in the same grade with a Lords of
Parliament, immediately below them) and including into the Roll of
Peerage, or in a bad cause, of establishment of The Roll of the
Baronage of Scotland. Abovementioned is possible. But it must be proper
petition unto the Sovereign and must be proper support from people like
Honourable Sir Crispin Agnew,Bt. There are about 150 living people who
holds a dignity of a Baron. Meant ennobled under such a dignity by way
of recognition by the Crown, or succeeded such a dignity of Baron by
the order and provisions of succession). This is a not so many and may
not be more then existed on the date 28.11.2004. But they are not poor
people if it will be necessary to establish proper rights in the Court
of Session before the Petition to the Crown. It was not in Scotland
yet "Berkeley cause" in the Court of Session, it is not already
authomatical parliamentary right for hereditary peers, there is a
Barony of Torphichen in the Peerage of Scotland (and a lot of
precedents with the same creations, but now extinct), etc. All this
events are very useful and helpful for this purpose. If you will
direct your positive energy into this way and will consolidate Barons
for this matter it will be much more effective and for sure you will
meet with success.
Again with king regards,
Joseph McMillan
2005-09-22 20:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Scottish feudal baronies are, under the 2000 Act, incorporeal heritable
property. As such they can be sold just like other incorporeal
heritable property (e.g. a patent or copyright).
A technical correction: patents and copyrights, while incorporeal, are
not heritable. They are incorporeal moveable property.

Joseph McMillan
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-22 22:54:53 UTC
Permalink
I am afraid you are wrong. Can a patent (or copyright) be inherited?
Yes. Therefore it is heritable. How can something that is incorporeal
be moveable? It doesn't physically exist.

Graham Senior-MIlne
Joseph McMillan
2005-09-22 23:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I am afraid you are wrong. Can a patent (or copyright) be inherited?
Yes. Therefore it is heritable. How can something that is incorporeal
be moveable? It doesn't physically exist.
No, I'm afraid *you* are wrong. I am not a Scottish lawyer or any
other kind, but it's easy enough to learn with a little research that
heritable and moveable are the two Scottish categories of property
corresponding to the English categories real and personal. According
to the Scottish Office's guide to "Rights of Succession" at
<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/deleted/library/documents-w10/ros-00.htm>:
"In Scots law, heritable property means land and buildings, while
moveable property includes such things as money, shares, cars,
furniture and jewellery."

And the Scottish Executive's page on "Business Finance and Security
over Moveable Property" specifically says: "Incorporeal moveable
property includes rights to the performance of obligations (whether
arising by contract, delict, or unjustified enrichment) and
intellectual property rights (patents, trademarks, copyright &c)."

In other words, some heritable property can be moved and all moveable
property can be inherited, just as items of personal property in
English law are usually real and real property can be quite personal.
We can't assume that terms of art in the law mean what they seem to
mean at first glance.

Joseph McMillan
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
2005-09-23 15:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I am afraid you are wrong. Can a patent (or copyright) be inherited?
Yes. Therefore it is heritable. How can something that is incorporeal
be moveable? It doesn't physically exist.
No, I'm afraid *you* are wrong. I am not a Scottish lawyer or any
other kind, but it's easy enough to learn with a little research that
heritable and moveable are the two Scottish categories of property
corresponding to the English categories real and personal. According
to the Scottish Office's guide to "Rights of Succession" at
"In Scots law, heritable property means land and buildings, while
moveable property includes such things as money, shares, cars,
furniture and jewellery."
And the Scottish Executive's page on "Business Finance and Security
over Moveable Property" specifically says: "Incorporeal moveable
property includes rights to the performance of obligations (whether
arising by contract, delict, or unjustified enrichment) and
intellectual property rights (patents, trademarks, copyright &c)."
In other words, some heritable property can be moved and all moveable
property can be inherited, just as items of personal property in
English law are usually real and real property can be quite personal.
We can't assume that terms of art in the law mean what they seem to
mean at first glance.
Joseph McMillan
I am not a lawyer either. I am relying on good old common sense.
Heritable means capable of being inherited and movable means capable of
being moved. Common sense tells me that movable property is heritable
and that incorporeal property cannot be movable, since it physically
does not exist. If Scots law says something else then Scots law is an
ass (and on the subject of whether the law is an ass or not, I am the
final and absolute authority).

Graham Senior-Milne
Andrew
2005-09-22 23:09:28 UTC
Permalink
So, as I see, here you have established a position that the Sovereign
was incorrect to grant upon a holder of a free barony (a baronial
jurisdiction) 'Titulum, Honorem, Ordinem at Statum liberi Baronis' -
Title, Honour, Rank and State of Baron. And it is disputed here that
the decision of her Majesty's Court of Law made incorrect decision in
judgment of date 26 February 1943: 'With regard to the words
'untitled nobility' employed in certain recent birthbrieves in
relation to the Minor Baronage of Scotland, Finds and Declares
that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have been both in
this nobiliary Court and in the Court of Session recognised as
a "titled nobility" and
that the estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the
ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland'.
As you found in your post, the Sovereign (Kings and Queens of Scots)
has established incorrect position for a holder of a free barony (as
founded by you), and Lord Mansfield from the Committee of Privileges
was wrong in his decision (that the holding of a free barony ennobled
the holder by the honour, dignity, state and title of Baron) more then
400 years ago, and the Judge of the Realm and Minister of the Crown
Lord Lyon Grant, 62 years ago has also made incorrect decision.
Would you like to write a new legislation for the UK? May be it will be
much better then present.

With VERY Kind regards and good luck,




Wery interestin position.
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Scottish feudal baronies are, under the 2000 Act, incorporeal heritable
property. As such they can be sold just like other incorporeal
heritable property (e.g. a patent or copyright).
A technical correction: patents and copyrights, while incorporeal, are
not heritable. They are incorporeal moveable property.
Joseph McMillan
Andrew
2005-09-22 23:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Correction myself : '...in the Lord Mansfield ( more then 400 years
ago granted free barony of Spynie) cause the Committee of Privileges...
Post by Andrew
So, as I see, here you have established a position that the Sovereign
was incorrect to grant upon a holder of a free barony (a baronial
jurisdiction) 'Titulum, Honorem, Ordinem at Statum liberi Baronis' -
Title, Honour, Rank and State of Baron. And it is disputed here that
the decision of her Majesty's Court of Law made incorrect decision in
judgment of date 26 February 1943: 'With regard to the words
'untitled nobility' employed in certain recent birthbrieves in
relation to the Minor Baronage of Scotland, Finds and Declares
that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have been both in
this nobiliary Court and in the Court of Session recognised as
a "titled nobility" and
that the estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the
ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland'.
As you found in your post, the Sovereign (Kings and Queens of Scots)
has established incorrect position for a holder of a free barony (as
founded by you), and Lord Mansfield from the Committee of Privileges
was wrong in his decision (that the holding of a free barony ennobled
the holder by the honour, dignity, state and title of Baron) more then
400 years ago, and the Judge of the Realm and Minister of the Crown
Lord Lyon Grant, 62 years ago has also made incorrect decision.
Would you like to write a new legislation for the UK? May be it will be
much better then present.
With VERY Kind regards and good luck,
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Scottish feudal baronies are, under the 2000 Act, incorporeal heritable
property. As such they can be sold just like other incorporeal
heritable property (e.g. a patent or copyright).
A technical correction: patents and copyrights, while incorporeal, are
not heritable. They are incorporeal moveable property.
Joseph McMillan
Joseph McMillan
2005-09-23 00:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
So, as I see, here you have established a position
and so on.

No, I haven't established anything beyond what the Scottish Office and
Scottish Executive have established. I would be delighted to read in
full what Lord Mansfield's had to say in the Spynie case if you will
provide the text. Sir Thomas Innes of Learney's gloss will not do.
I've found too many instances in Scots Heraldry where he quotes Nisbet
out of context or even fabricates citations altogether, and where he
cites Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean as arguments he made in that case
were upheld, when in fact they were rejected. I assume that it is the
Maclean case that you refer to as the case in which Lord Lyon Grant was
involved 61 years ago.

However, as interesting as these cases will be, especially the Spynie
case, I don't see that they necessarily affect the point under
discussion, which is whether a Scottish feudal barony title can be
bought and sold *today* and whether or not the acquisition of such a
title constitutes a grant of nobility by the crown *today*, not 400
years ago.

So with that I will leave you two gentlemen to your debate.

Joseph McMillan
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...