Jump to content

Talk:Baronage of Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I created this article for collecting feudal baronies. I doubt if there have been creations of such baronies after 1707, but I want to have the possibility to put in also such baronies.
VM 17:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Better add some refs and an explanation of these peculiar left-overs.
DGG 01:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have an idea of what category this page should belong to?
VM 15:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article is still very incomplete, since many Scottish baronies -- most -- are missing. Many are ancient subsidiary feudal titles held by Scottish hereditary peers. In addition, it mistakenly conflates feudal earldoms and dukedoms with baronies; they should be listed separately. The feudal earldom of Arran should not be listed among the baronies without clarifying that it is an earldom outranking all baronies. The feudal earldoms of Breadalbane and Crawfurd-Lindsay are simply missing, as is the feudal dukedom of Lenox (which in turn outranks all earldoms).24.227.153.54 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that the current Baroness of Lag is Margaret Hamilton. The Baron of Mordington is Graham Senior-Milne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephaestos69 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with the comment respecting feudal earldoms (and lordships). Some lordships, though not all, are also baronies (ex. - Kilmarnock and Holydean), but others are not (ex. - lordship of the Garioch). If the titles which outrank baronies are to be included in this list, they should at least be denoted as what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephaestos69 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for individual histories

[edit]

Each feudal barony ideally should have its own article, wikified from this list, as will soon the English feudal baronies, now all defunct. It is never too late to start such a history even where historical records are lacking. Where a current holder dies or sells, it would be desirable instead of simply deleting his name from the list and replacing it with the new holder, to start a new article titled "Scottish feudal barony of X", which will start the history as if at year 0 with a brief biography of the deceased holder, how he acquired the barony etc. I am not aware if there is any authoritative publication such as Debrett's Peerage which records the descent of these feudal baronies, or indeed whether any heraldic or other body exists which records them. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Rationalisation of feudal barony articles

[edit]

I propose the following as a logical structure for the broad area of the feudal barony:

I am pasting the above to talk pages of the other articles concerned. Your comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Role of Feudal Baronies Today

[edit]

Altruists: The Baronies of Prestongrange & Dolphinston are active in the cultural and economic development of their territories. Conquerers: The Barony and Lordship of Halydean (Holydean) reincorporated in Delaware and is amassing land and grazing animals abroad in a corporate "mergers & acquisitions" manner with all of the conquering fervor of any ancient Norman raider. Historians: Other barons act as historical spokesmen for their territories. Genteels: Many feudal barons quite elegantly insist, "please, just call me John," and strive to downplay their status. Perhaps a section could be added to this article describing the role of feudal baronies today? Does anyone find this interesting? insightfullysaid, talk 10:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.119.40.101 (talk) [reply]

Counties

[edit]

What is the definition of county in the list of baronies? Is it the “historic county”, and if so, in which era? See the articles Counties of Scotland, Barony and Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The county name at the time the barony was created may have changed during its history, and counties and burghs were replaced by other units after 1975. Contributors have used various versions. Also, there is variation with “shire”, e.g. Ayr/Ayrshire. Although baronies are no longer tied to land, I think it’s useful to include county. I’m going to use the historic counties before 1890 for now in my own additions, since that's when the baronies were created, and add shire, but I’d like to see this clarified. Cataobh (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's obvious I'm a newbie. So un-Wikipedic to ask. I'm implementing my own standards as described above, starting with my own additions. Other viewpoints are welcome though, of course! Cataobh (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finnart

[edit]

The baronies of Finnart and Finnart-Stewart would appear to come into this category, but have since been merged into Greenock and Gourock respectively. Should they be listed? . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Lochiel?

[edit]

Here are two sources that say the lands of Lochiel were united into a Barony in the early sixteenth century:

  1. http://www.scotsoflou.com/public/images/pdfs/clanifo/clanpdf/C/Clan%20CAMERON.pdf
  2. http://www.rampantscotland.com/clans/blclancameron.htm

Is this adequate evidence that Lochiel should be added to the list of feudal baronies? Thanks GPS Pilot (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have just linked a new article Barony of Preston and Prestonpans in the list - please feel free to take a look and improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barons in Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhall

[edit]

We had some trouble with editors in getting the Barony of Blackhall page up, to which this page is linked; notabiity guidelines require that other knowledgeable sources, including you on this site, improve the article. Please feel free to add some constructive editing to advance the Blackhall site if necessary, including bringing it into line with the guidelines of this 'Barons in Scotland' site. Also, would it not be useful to get some exposure to the Convention of the Baronage? Your site here could really be useful for pulling the whole baronage together a bit tighter. Kind wishes and well done. Special:Contributions 15:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Baron Baillie?

[edit]

Why does Baron baillie link here, but then there is no further mention of it? Kiltpin (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barons in Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barons in Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.N. of X

[edit]

In the list of present Barons there is a tendency to add the baronial land designation after the name. Why? The territorial designation in the left column should suffice. The purpose of the column of name is to know the name of the holder - should not first name and surname suffice for that? Not need to flaunt the territorial designation in that column... Jonar242 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the territorial designation would be a part of the official name of the Baron, only if he is still in possession of the caput (i.e. the land that formerly was part of the legal barony). Being in possession of the caput allows the Lord Lyon to officially recognize the holder of the designation as: John Smith of XXX, Baron of XXX. If not In possession of the caput, the hold is simply: John Smith, Baron of XXX.

But I suspect you’re referring to the title “Baron/Lord of XXX”. I would agree that there’s no need to add that in the list of barons. But if we’re taking about John Smith of XXX, Baron of XXX (i.e. someone that is recognized as a baron and entitled to use the territorial designation in his name), then we might want to consider allowing the designation in the name of the holder. But only if there’s a reference citing his right to bear the designation as part of his name. Gillespk (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Earlshall

[edit]

Although the family no longer owns Earlshall Castle, David Robert Baxter (Baron Earlshall) retained the title and coat of arms, presented to him by Lord Lyons of Arms. The Baron died in April 2018, whereupon his wife. Lorraine Earlshall assumed the title of Baroness Earlshall. The patents, scrolls and legal paperwork are currently held in her possession. ADM Baxter, son of the present Baroness. 2A00:23C5:6282:7D01:7D25:31E7:5F14:3D4 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should really be a source to keep her on the list but I won't remove her name myself.
NB the correct form is "Baroness of Earshall" as the style "Baroness Earlshall" would imply that she is a life-peeress with different precedence and a seat in the House of Lords. Kaahukura (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fantasy kings and earls

[edit]

This edit, in the guise of reorganization, also slipped in an entry for an "Earl of Crawfurd-Lindsay" (distinct from the Earl of Crawford and the Earl of Lindsay), cited to the website of a fantasy kingdom – as well as attributing the coat of arms of a football club to a couple hundred of the barons. Does anyone have the energy to check whether it also introduced other nonsense, or shall we simply revert to immediately before it? —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It verges on vandalism. So much inaccurate, self styled pretence and fakery has been added in recent months. Notes on which Barons are related, or satanists, or self styled African "Kings" are not notable, not reliable and wholly irrelevant to the topic.
I haven't checked every link but can confirm a lot of nonsense on this and other linked pages. Not sure what to do about it but I'll flag here that the linked pages of several Barons have been edited to call them 'noble' when Scottish Barons do not meet the crown's (admittedly quite strict) definition of nobility.
I would vote to revert to before the page was moved. Barons in Scotland is a more neutral description, lacking the pretence of equivalence with historical baronages or the peerage. Kaahukura (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just had another look at the arms column and most have nothing to do with the current holder of the Barony. Some also bear no relation to the history of the barony (the first two are an unrelated clan chief and a life-peeress). I think that's another argument for a major rollback Kaahukura (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biffeche is selfpublished and does not reliably support that the persons mentioned are members of the baronage. I support the recent removal of them, until there are reliable sources.
On the other hand [https://www.registryofscotsnobility.com/baronage/ the Registry of Scots Nobility lists some of the titles and incumbents and can be used as source, removing the unreliable Biffeche source. We should avoid selfpublished sources, especially those that claim that someone is royalty since they tend to be exaggerated or outright fabricated.
Maybe a revert to June 11 is the best, and then the texts that the user wrote can be restored from the article history. Sjö (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjö Fakery should not be tolerated I completely agree, but I disagree with reverting to June 11 as the old version formatting was terrible, the page needs to be improved upon further, not go backwards. I do agree we do need reliable referenced sources which we should all contribute to.
I support the page title staying as the Baronage of Scotland as per the official body The Convention of The Baronage of Scotland (https://www.scotsbarons.org/) which represents scottish barons originally being one of the former Three Estates of Scotland.
Regarding nobility — I've added 8 sources including institutional writers, the court of the Lord Lyon representing the monarch in Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission Government Website and UK Government Legislation Website and Scottish parliament -- all referring to the NOBLE title of a scottish baron and the noble quality and noble aspects of the barony title.
So to remove and ignore verified resources I do not agree with.
I agree we can remove http://kingdomofbiffeche.net/ but it's eccentric info about the baron which can be confirmed in his movies and other press articles. The titles can easily be confirmed and referenced by Burke's Peerage https://www.burkespeerage.com/search.php or if available Lord Lyon court documents which I'm now adding to the page. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regarding the baron that's a satanist, he says on his official page that he's a member of the church of Satan which is a recognised religion in the US military and he's a in the US military, it's eccentric info in the notes field I thought Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Earldom of Crawfurd-Linsday: Court of the Lord Lyon: "In 2006 Lord Lyon Blair recognised three Petitioners who had similarly been granted lands traceable back to a royal erection in unum comitatum as “Feudal Countess of Crawfurd-Lindsay" https://web.archive.org/web/20160303181027/http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/files/WES%20Note.pdf
Also listed as Earl of Crawfurd-Lindsay and Baron of Auchterutherstruther on https://www.burkespeerage.com/search.php
I agree that this is a page for baronial Baron titles and there is a separate page for baronial Earl titles.
However, if the holder's primary baronial title is an Earldom or has subsidiary titles the formatting of the page clearly states:
Titles in italics are subsidiary baronial titles held by the same baron. Titles linked and with The before the name is the holder's primary title. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Baronage of Scotland

Good morning @Nikkimaria I hope you're keeping well this weekend. I noticed your revert to undo my changes removing the banner.

My comment was: Removed excessive external links warning, there are some 350 barons listed and about a dozen external links mainly obituaries to confirm deaths - not excessive it's a large page. Welcome to discuss on Talk page if you feel it's a problem

You commented:

not excessive but inappropriate. links that are used to source claims should be full footnotes, rather than linking the claims in the article body or using bare URLs

--

So out of 350 barons I count 16 that have died, only 12 of these link to obituaries... so the others have no proof of death.

You're requesting that these "proof of death" links are converted into notes? What about turning them into references instead so they can still link?

I am of the opinion that these links are fine as unfortunately your requests will clutter the page even further, but I'm happy to make it happen if that's what you want so you're happy 🙂 Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kellycrak88, when you're using an external link to cite a claim (such as a date of death), they do need to be presented as citations rather than as embedded external links - see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoid_embedded_links. Doing that won't get this anywhere near the list of articles with the most references so clutter shouldn't be an issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for bringing this to my attention, I've converted all 16 death notices to citations and removed excessive external link notice Kellycrak88 (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes column

[edit]

How come the notes column was removed? It was very useful for noting dead barons and father was Lord Lyon etc. Who's in favour of brining it back with notability and RS Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the edit comment, I removed these because the notes were full of unverified information, information unsuited for an encyclopaedia, orthographic mistakes and generally of poor quality. In my view the overall quality was so low that a complete removal of the notes column was the right option. I'm not saying I'm opposed to a notes column per se, but it would need to be relevant to the barony or current baron and not "promotional" - and it would need to meet the normal standard of reliable sources.
If your proposal is to put back the old notes en masse, I would be very much opposed. If your proposal is to add a new column for notes and then work in relevant notes that meet the above criteria one-by-one, I see no problem. This would apply equally to new information and information I removed that, on review (and link to proper sources), meet those requirements. I objected to the content, not the notes feature itself - and as I said, in my view overall it was so poor that the right thing was to remove the entire column, rather than review every entry.
PS! I did retain all the information relating to dead barons, including the references, but I moved it to footnotes. We're talking about 5-8 baronies, at most. Charliez (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, let's proceed with your second point if you're in agreement Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: no issue re a notes field in itself, so if you have relevant notes you want to add please go ahead. Though I do want to highlight the risk such a field constitutes in terms of tempting some users into self-promotion and COI edits. I reverted one just yesterday which seemed like pretty blatant COI and did not meet the requirement for reliable sources. As it is an entirely "free text" field, I would prefer if edits err on the conservative side with high quality sources cited properly.
One issue to mention is that I reformatted the table to keep all rows of equal column length. I honestly don't know what WP best practices on this is. Personally I think that looks better, but unless there are some automated tools it would be a time consuming job to add a field to each row (it certainly was, when I did the edit...) Charliez (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably better if you add the notes back as you know which ones you don't like. I know you probably don't like the satanist note, or King of Ghana, or lord of of the manor mentions or appointed to the Order of Saint Lazarus just guessing... so which ones are you objecting to? Died or Seat or interesting occupation, or relation/father or marriage are all very interesting and uses on peerage lists. Btw I think all of these are fine so waiting for objections, here's some examples:
Died 2019
Canadian billionaire
German banker
Father is Baron of Inneryne
father was Sir Malcolm Innes of Edingight, grandfather was Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, previous Lord Lyons
known as Mr Marcus Humphrey of Dinnet and does not use baronial title
runs a Barons court with brother Baron of Prestoungrange and father Baron of Lochnaw
was 21st Laird of Abergeldie Castle, sold the castle
Bloodline dates to 6c. He is viewed as a "sovereign lord" by the Lord Lyon. Premier baron predates Kingdom of Scotland (and Kings of Scots) in his passport like the King before name By The Grace Of God
married Lady Harriot Pleydell-Bouverie, daughter of 7th Earl of Radnor
Seat: Ballindalloch Castle. Appointed Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and Lord Lieutenant of Banffshire, does not use baronial title; prefers to be known as Mrs Clare Russell, married to commoner
Seat: Kilcoy Castle, father is Lord of the Garioch heir to the lordship Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charliez if you prefer just tell me which other ones you don't like as I imagine it would only be a handful Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave your edits at your own discretion, though to add a few comments: In general, I think the wording on some of these could be improved by a more encyclopaedic or genealogical editorial style (so "Peter Smith, formerly of X Castle" rather than "was 21st Laird of X Castle, sold the castle"). "Bloodline dates to 6c. He is viewed as a "sovereign lord" by the Lord Lyon. Premier baron predates Kingdom of Scotland (and Kings of Scots) in his passport like the King before name By The Grace Of God" should be reworded entirely, to e.g. "The barony predates the Kingdom of Scotland and is thus not of a traditional feudal origin. As their baronial rights predates the feudal systems, the Barons of X have traditionally used the prefix "By the Grace of God" and this has been accepted by HM Passport Office.
I'd drop "German banker" and "Canadian billionaire" as they are subjective terms, unless there are WP pages for these individuals using the same description.
Also, I think we should keep in mind that the list is a list of baronies, not barons, and as such comments on currents barons should be kept short and to the point.
I'm presuming there are reliable sources for all these notes, so not commenting on that aspect. Charliez (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Chapeau/Cap of Maintenance Colours and Furs

[edit]

In the table, the caps over the shields are red with ermine fur. Certain baronies have other cap colours (blue for some pre-2004-no-longer-in-possession barons, green for certain nordic-origin fiefs) or are correctly furred ermines, etc. Here, the cap of the Barony of the Bachuil is shewn wrong with ermine fur (also shewn wrong on the Baron of the Bachuil page, though correctly described). Its cap fur should be vair (representing squirrel fur), not ermine, a unique honour for predating all Scots feudal titles (cf. Lord Lyon Innes of Learney; cf. Letters Patent (matriculation of WJA Livingston) 1 June 2004). The correct cap "gules furred vair" is shewn in the full achievement of arms of Livingston of Bachuil, on page 9 of: https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205638/http://www.baronage.co.uk/2006a/Bachuil.pdf . 2600:1700:2000:E740:411C:6B4C:D9F1:C5F8 (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please provide the graphic? 167.179.242.171 (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baronage_of_Scotland&oldid=1256609492"