Talk:Prescriptive barony

Wow, this needs serious editing

Hey gents,

This is a prime example of an article which has been used for commercial use and I would advocate, at the minimum, a serious edit of the information on that page or its removal entirely. I've taken the liberty of removing some sections which were blatantly incorrect or misleading, such as the fact that "it is the ultimate executive privilege to buy a title" or some such nonsense, and several sections which imply that a prescriptive barony (which has a dubious legal standing to begin with) is a peerage. I will edit the rest of this tonight. Rowing88 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humble Request

Wikipedia is an upstanding reference, lets please keep debate out of these fine pages. There are chatrooms for debate. I've noticed most of the fierce debate is gone from this subject. Thank you for the excellent progress and effort from our veterans. I marked a section which is an area of fierce debate-- I may agree with it, but it does not belong here regardless. These issues are debated so fiercely that there presently ARE lawsuits in the UK over the matter, which remain unresolved to date. I will post updates on rulings here for veteran editors to assess when they become available. I have spoken with one of the senior editors of Burke's Peerage and Gentry, a publishing company which publishes opinions from all sides of debateable issues regarding prescriptive baronies: He felt that this was a hotly debated subject, and I agree with him. We should keep debates elsewhere, thank you to the un-biased peacemakers who continue to improve Wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insightfullysaid (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I'm back with more info as promised (forwarned?).

Following are comments from the Lord Lyon regarding a doctor from Norway who bought a barony title, owns no land in Scotland, and has never even been to Scotland:

COURT OF THE LORD LYON Note by the Lord Lyon in the Petition of Lars Jorgen Cramer Lindberg

“Since the 1845 Conveyancing Act the conveyance of a barony has no longer required the consent of the Crown.” “Dr Lindberg is a baron…” “I have concluded that Dr Lindberg does not, by virtue of ownership of the barony of Delvine, fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. I have also decided that there are no grounds for my exercising my discretion to grant Arms to him, despite his not falling within my jurisdiction. I will accordingly refuse the Petition. Court of the Lord Lyon HM New Register House Edinburgh EH1 3YT 2 April 2007”

So, that all being evident, Lyon states that the approval of the Crown (or the Crown's representative) is not needed to convey a barony title, and that the individual in question is a Baron, but that does not entitle him to arms in Scotland in and of itself. So, a veteran will do well to correct the error in the final paragraph under "legal status" in this entry, which states that the transfer must be approved by Lyon, when Lyon clearly stated the opposite earlier this month, as referenced above. Due to the heated discussion previously entertained here, please refrain from making this update unless you are a veteran with no intense feelings on the subject which could induce bias. Cheers. -Insightfullysaid

One more note, this is the policy of Burke's Peerage & Gentry on Feudal Barons: "In the case of feudal barons the normal requirement is that the dignity of baron has either been recognized by the Lord Lyon or has been recognised as valid, and accepted onto, the Scottish Barony Register. This policy will remain in force until such time as it is required to be reviewed by circumstances." Burke's policy is to accept either a nod from Lyon or the Scottish Barony Register to authenticate a baron. Are there any references to support the statements that Lyon must approve a transaction? I find this hard to believe in light of Lyon's own official statements and rulings, and comments on past rulings. -Insightfullysaid

5th June, 2008. Tag date changed, in light of the above - and a tidy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.155.26 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How not to be lame

I've blanked the threats and acrimony on this talkpage. I assume y'all won't miss them. So, it seems we have ourselves a little revert war. Yes, it is an edit war. User:Skull 'n' Femurs is not a vandal. User:Athelstanus is not a vandal. Deal with it. If either of you persist in making personal attacks or other lameness like this, you will be blocked.

Now, you blokes are both fairly new, so I assume you haven't experienced one before. Here's some tips:

Edit wars are lame, even the ones that aren't really lame.
By participating in an edit war, you're not a vandal. You're just lame.
The person on the other side of the war isn't a vandal either, but he is lame.
If this crap keeps up, either I or another admin will prevent any changes being made to any related article, and block you both for a minimum of 24 hours.
Your problems won't go away if you just revert often enough to make the other give up, so forget about that right now.

If you're willing to co-operate over this article, and not just blindly revert and fling insults at one another, we might get somewhere. We have a policy of civility on Wikipedia, best summed up as Don't be a dick. Things to keep in mind: nobody here is a vandal; nobody here is a fraudster; and you may not threaten to sue someone here unless you plan to do it in a COURT of LAW in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.

Instead of reverting, or making any controversial changes to this article, please discuss things on the talkpage instead. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this comment.--SarekOfVulcan 04:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I third this comment. -- Skull 'n' Femurs 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skull 'n' Femurs has recently blanked the article, the contents of which I have reinstated. So much for "third[ing]" that comment. JSIN 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skull 'n' Femurs has left a message on my talk page saying that the page was "in edit", so this may not have been vandalism, I am not sure. This talk page had a large section blanked by that user, which I have reinstated. JSIN 08:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry JSIN, I missed you consecration as a demi-god. Editing and blanking are different. Skull 'n' Femurs 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in a bit late here, I realise. Please, guys, sniping at one another is hardly a productive use of anyone's time ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Thanks

MarkGallagher Thanks for the style and link input here at Prescriptive Barony. Skull 'n' Femurs 04:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"by tenure"

This article deals with the system post 1660, when the title came "by tenure". However, would it not be wise to describe medieval baronies, ie. as an administrative/judicial unit? --Mais oui! (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to England section

A number of edits were made to the England section today by User:86.135.89.33. These contained a wide range of typographical and grammatical errors. They made a number of claims based upon a text called Manorial Law, which I happen to have. This text does state that Honours continue to exist as incorporeal hereditaments like manors, and it also says that Honours or baronies are collections of manors. However, what it does not say is that an Honour is a barony, or that feudal baronies continue to exist in England, which was the editor's claim. Should s/he wish to assert this, another source is required. On the basis of the above, I have reverted the amendments to the article until verifiable information is added. Editor8888 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge

How about merging with Feudal baron? Seems to be a fair amount of duplication. —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]