Talk:Earls, Marquises and Dukes in the Baronage of Scotland

Comments

Missing formerly-feudal current Scottish earldoms

The current Breadalbane and Crawfurd-Lindsay earldoms should be added to the list by someone with access to proper sources. There are others. A reference could also be made to the formerly-feudal Dukedom of Lenox (as opposed to the Lenox ducal peerage). 70.113.8.195 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have read this article, and it is need of revision. No feudal earl ranks below some "life peer" lord of parliament who is a mere politician. Whilst I am not a feudal earl myself, I should expect that most of these (very abundant and cheap-to-create) "life peers" appointed by HM to sit in parliament to work there, leaving their heirs with no title and no land will be long forgotten within one generation. I need not remind that our grand earls have heritable titles which will pass to the heirs. I hope someone with the wherewithal to cite proper references can correct this rubbish about a lord of parliament ranking above an earl. Preposterous in a very literal sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.12.47 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment #2

@Kellycrak88: You stated, "we need to create dedicated pages for baronage titles, for example, Earl of Rothes (baronial title)... Some of the baronial titles are mentioned on the peerage page. Earl of Arran is a good example; it has a good section on the baronial title..." What do you mean by 'baronial titles'? All feudal earldoms are baronial in nature, and basically, all baronial titles belonged to the peers holding the peerages that have the same name as the baronial ones. Therefore, there's no need for dedicated pages, as they share similar history. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

not necessarily, the Earl of Crawfurd-Lindsay (baronage title) is not the same name as Earl of Crawfurd (peerage title) -- they might have similar origin, I agree in most cases the baronage title can be mentioned on the peerage page. However if the peerage page is already full, then a dedicated baronage title page makes sense and can list the current holder and info about them, previous holders, the heir, arms, etc. Same for Earl of Breadalbane (baronage title) is not the same name as Earl of Breadalbane and Holland (peerage title) Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. What about the 'List of Lordships' and 'List of Baronies'? Since, as you know, they are well covered in their respective articles, if you want to provide quick redirects, it would be better to put them in the 'See also' section. This article is mainly concerned with earldoms, marquisates, and dukedoms. Also, please consider moving the page to 'Earls, Marquesses, and Dukes in the Baronage of Scotland' to maintain consistency. Daniel Plumber (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, the page is about Earls because there is a lot of relevant info about them and they've been transferred to non-peer holders in the 21st century. There is only 1 Marquess and 1 Duke baronage title extant both held by peers of identical peerage title, they're really a mute point... so the article should really all be about Earls and then a footnote point for Marquess/Duke which is covered in the table currently. I also don't think 'See also' is a good section for the Lordship and Baron lists as there is some additional info included on this page about their degree of nobility in the baronage and it's keeping uniform style with other pages. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

OK then. But the Marquess (Baron as written in Lord Lyon's letters patent) of Huntly was sold in 1994, therefore its held by a non-peer. Daniel Plumber (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

you replied before I could hit submit :) that's useful information let's add to the notes section Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

was he infeft in 2015 or 1994, or is this now a family pass down title? Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

He bought the title in 1994, as confirmed by BGH. Daniel Plumber (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Plumber hold on, I stand corrected the Marquess baronage title might be held by a civilian not the peer - will need further clarification on that. But my opinion is still the same Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

English and Irish titles

@Kellycrak88: It is still debated whether English/Irish titles still exist. Some argue that the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 and 1662 did not extinguish feudal titles, they only abolished the tenure by military services. Section 11 of 1660 Act specifically preserved feudal dignities, regardless of their status: "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", and I doubt the clause is much different in the 1662 Act. As WP:UNDUE, while the below paragraph represents the majority view, it does not cover the significant minority view, and the style of writing isn't very neutral. This needs a rewrite or just reversion/deletion. Daniel Plumber (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, all remaining tenures (including tenure by barony - per baroniam) as well as non-writ titles were converted to free and common socages. I believe that's how manorial lordships survive to this day. I am reverting this temporarily - until things are sorted out. Daniel Plumber (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

welcome to rewrite to neutral view, Scottish baronies are accepted without question - I'd prefer not to muddle with the questionable Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Philotam edits to page when other editors disagree

@Philotam you keep editing the page to the page to the way you want when you know others editors disagree.

First of all you're re-ordering the page to the way you want it with Duke and Marquis at the top -- which is ridiculous when the article is all about feudal earls, there is only 1 duke and 1 marquis in the baroange and they are footnotes.

Then you're changing spelling from British english to American english on a British article.

And you keeping editing Marquis to Marquess when as a rule scotland follows the french spelling.

The page needs to be reverted back and I welcome consensus from other users. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely support reverting this page back. The insistence of using the American English spelling "Marquess" shows a complete lack of familiarity with Scottish titles of nobility, which has almost invariably used the spelling "Marquis", cf. eg. a quick search through the pre-union Records of the Parliament of Scotland.

If anyone wants to change the order of titles on this page, it should be suggested on the talk page so that a consensus can be reached, rather than just repeating the same edit without any discussion. Charliez (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Feudal dukedom(s): Original Lenox not extinct?

I read in some places many years ago (can't cite them) that: A. the original earldom-then-dukedom of Lenox or Lennox (not the more recent 1675 creation held by the Richmond and Lennox peers) near Glasgow had both a feudal and a separate peerage existence; B. the determining "caput" land of the original feudal dukedom was in Inchynnane (renewed perhaps in a charter of novodamus, RMS, IV, 2972) in Renfrewshire south of the River Clyde, not Lennox Castle/Maternity Hospital in Dumbartonshire; C. the feudal ducal title was severed from the original peerage title when the latter died out; D. the feudal title was not formally dissolved, and the caput was not moved by statute or any order; E. the caput may or may not have been the former "Inchinnan Palace", ruins of which were studied recently in https://rlhf.info/a-weird-history-the-lost-palace-of-inchinnan/ which implies that the key place may now be under a roundabout; F. on "The Appointed Day" 28 Nov. 2004 specified in Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, the owner then of the caput land on that day got the title as an incorporeal hereditament (that could be transferred by disposition or inheritance); and G. what I had read earlier implied that the formal caput of the dukedom was at a private house in a housing estate in Inchinnan in 2004. If the above is correct, it's wrong for Wikipedia to claim that the feudal dukedom of Lennox is extinct. Then, whoever formally owned the caput land on 28 Nov. 2004, or an heir, may now be, in Scots law, unknowingly, the feudal Duke or Duchess of Lenox. 172.56.92.170 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

...whoever formally owned the caput land on 28 Nov. 2004, or an heir, may now be, in Scots law, unknowingly, the feudal Duke or Duchess of Lenox. That should be "...the formerly-feudal Duke or Duchess...", since feudal tenure itself was abolished in Scotland in 2004, and the Lenox dukedom, if still legally extant, is now a "free floating" (transferrable) title and dignity, similar to Scots baronies. 75.111.236.174 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If the title holder is approved and enrolled by the custodian in the Scottish Barony Register, it can of course be updated Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the continued existence of this formerly-feudal duchy of Lennox based at Inchinnan conflict with the current entry in the baronage-earldoms table claiming that the (peerage) Duke of Richmond and Lennox also owns the feudal (baronage) earldom of Lennox? If we cannot document that the Duke of Richmond and Lennox technically holds (owns) the baronage Lennox dukedom title, then perhaps he should not be in the table. 2600:1700:2000:E740:6D0E:D43A:73D1:AFE9 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)