Talk:Peerage of Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

4th Earl of Lennox[edit]

I was trying to write an entry on one Matthew Stuart (or Stewart)(1516-71), 4th Earl of Lennox; or actually, was checking to see if a page existed. Well, there's no page, and apparently, nothing about an Earl of Lennox (although Duke), so I wasn't sure exactly what to do here. I'm a bit loath to create a new title from scratch, when the peerage project on Wiki might have it elsewise classified. Any help? Rhymeless 06:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting: abnormally, there's no article at Earl of Lennox, indeed, but it is linked to from List of Earldoms (twice, indeed), from which you can see that the Dukedom went to a different family, and that it is extinct (and so not listed here). Anyway, the article should be at Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox, apparently ("'Stuart' is technically incorrect"); relatives of the family with articles include Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and Arbella Stuart.
James F. (talk) 20:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mentioned that Stuart is technically incorrect, would the same apply to his son, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley? (Pardon my ignorance of peerage). Rhymeless 05:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure; that quote was from some site I found via a quickly Googling; I have to confess that I don't know the greatest deal about Scottish history.
James F. (talk) 10:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have now filled out Earl of Lennox from what I can find in the 1911 Britannica; it's a bit sketchy and may be wrong, though.
James F. (talk) 11:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
AIUI, Stuart is simply the English spelling. Darnley's father adopted it whilst at the English court, and it became the generally accepted spelling after James VI inherited the English throne and came south. -- Gregg 13:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removal of fake title"[edit]

I removed the Earl Of Lerwick from the list as not a UK title and the date of grant set me off further I could find not ref outside wiki for this title or the person id

lost peers[edit]

Any idea where this Lord Aston should live? It is a defunct peerage but it is also an orphan so it should be either adopted or mercilessly done away with. MeltBanana 17:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? We have articles on defunct peerages. john k 18:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it to the correct location (Lord Aston of Forfar) and linked to it from List of Baronies. Proteus (Talk) 18:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

extinct peerage[edit]

Do we have an umbrella article on extinct peerages? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 03:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eventually, all extinct, dormant, abeyant, and forfeited peerage titles should be listed in List of Dukedoms, List of Marquessates, List of Earldoms, List of Viscountcies, and List of Baronies (perhaps that should be List of Baronies and Lordships of Parliament, or the two should be separated). john k 04:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Baron Belhaven or Lord Belhaven[edit]

Hello, This is a specific question but I reckoned someone here might know the answer. On Lord Belhaven and Stenton John Hamilton, 2nd Lord Belhaven and Stenton is listed (though a stub), but there is also an article John Hamilton, 2nd Baron Belhaven and Stenton which is more comprehensive. Does anyone know what the correct title is, & therefore on which page the article should be? AllanHainey 11:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Lord Belhaven and Stenton would be correct, as this is a Scottish Lordship of Parliament rather than an English/GB/UK Barony. The article on 2nd "Baron" Belhaven should be incorporated with that on 2nd Lord Belhaven.--George Burgess 13:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Buying a title ? Baron Blackburn[edit]

Im a little confused. In the past few days Indian-Canadian Dr. Ranjit Chandra has come under a great deal of scruitiny due to a CBC expose which acuses him of major academic fraud and taking money for studies that were never done. On last night's broadcast it was stated that after he threw money around to building stuff at a University in India he bought a "little something for himself: two aristocratic titles, the baron of Tronville in France, purchased for an undisclosed sum, and the baron of Blackburn in Scotland, a title we're told he's now offering for sale for £80,000 or about $164,000 Cdn." [1] . How the hell does that work ? Buying and selling a title ? I would think such a thing would be in violation of the Nickle Resolution ? If anyone can clear this up could you write to me on my talkpage ? Dowew 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Paying officials money to create a new title for you is corrupt and illegal; buying a previously existing title is absolutely impossible, insofar as such titles pass by heredity and heredity only. However, it is possible in England to buy the "Lordship" of such-and-such a manor; this is purely a matter of real estate. It's not really a title. Confusingly, the equivalent thing in Scotland is called a "feudal barony", which is likewise not really a title (the Scots equivalent of an English barony is called a "Lordship of Parliament"). Bottom line -- yes, you can buy an English "lordship of the manor" or a Scots "feudal barony"; but only if you like throwing your money away to prove to the world how shallow you are. Doops | talk 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A scotish Barony is different as you only gain it on a grant of Arms from Lord Lyon King of Arms as he is a Judge in matter of law related to such claims and a rep of HM the Queen such titles are "real" in a way that Lordships of the manour are not. However unless you gain the grant of Arms with modifacation for a Fedaul barron you have no right to the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I suppose that there is a reason that Lord Darnley is not listed here. The article states: "Lord Darnley is a title associated with a Scottish Lordship of Parliament first created in 1356". Since it says associated I guess it could mean that is not a substantive title, but to what is it subsidiary? The only other peerages listed in the article seem to have been created well after 1356, and I guess it would refer to something if it is correct. -- Domino theory (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Plans to un-redirect scottish nobility page to this one[edit]

I plan on un-redirecting the page Scottish nobility to this one on the peerage of Scotland. The reason I plan on doing this is because the redirect ignores the distinct legal system that exists in Scotland. One becomes noble in Scotland by more means than just being elevated to the peerage. The grantee of a grant of arms in Scotland is legally ennobled by the grant. The person who is by descent or by purchase a feudal baron in Scotland is certainly a nobleman. As such I plan on un-redirecting the article in 21 days time. BTW: no changes will be made to this page Scottish peerage; Comments? fr33kman (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

actually, that concept is disputed. However, the idea that the nobility of Britain is limited to holders of peerage titles is absurd. Certainly, what would be called an aristocrat in the UK has equal social status with many titled and untitled members of the Continental nobility. Tinynanorobots (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Only female heirs[edit]

This article claims that a title "passes to the eldest daughter" rather than going into abeyance. I believe that is false. I believe the true situation is that the title is re-granted to one of the heirs-general. And that this heir-general does not necessarily need to be the eldest. I've added a fact tag to that clause for this reason. Please be sure to cite a *print* source, as most of the internet is hopelessly confused on the issue. Wjhonson (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to an example of such a process, particularly regrant to a younger sister? Otherwise I'm skeptical; abeyance is a consequence of an English rule that sisters inherit equally, without seniority. —Tamfang (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A related question. I've seen, in at least two other articles, an assertion that "the Dukedom of Marlborough is the only extant British dukedom that can still be inherited by females". When was the last Scottish Duchess suo jure? When and how did the rules change? —Tamfang (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Master/Mistress of X[edit]

It may be useful to include a section on how the titles Master of X and Mistress of X are used since they are inextricably linked to scottish peerage titles. For instance I have found some conflicting information about when these titles are to be used. Wikipedia says Master of X is displaced by a peerage title, yet I am sure i've previously come across titles structured much as the following: "Joe Bloggs, Master of X, Lord X. In this case the title Master of X is that of an Earldom and the title Lord X is that's Earl's subsidiary peerage title. This makes further sense because the eldest son of an Earl outranks a Baron/Lord of Parliament, so therefore the Master title takes precedence over the peerage title. Furthermore the Master of X title is substantive whereas the courtesy peerage is a courtesy title. Help anyone? (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, there ought to be a link to Master (Peerage of Scotland). —Tamfang (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Earl of Cambridge and Baron Innerdale in the Peerage of England
Duke of Brandon and Baron Dutton in the Peerage of Great Britain

This was reverted, removing all but Brandon, with the note no, this is wrong. If it's wrong, then Duke of Hamilton also needs correcting. —Tamfang (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. User:Brendandh seems to be convinced (on the basis of an old book on the Peerage of Scotland - hardly a fantastic authority on the Peerage of England) that a 1698 regrant (a mechanism unknown to English law) of the (Scottish) Dukedom of Hamilton somehow also regranted the (English) Earldom of Cambridge which had in fact become extinct in 1651. Not only is this original research, but it's also nonsensical: if the English Earldom of Cambridge had been restored in this way, (a) the Dukes of Hamilton would have been Peers of England from 1698 and would have been entitled to seats in the British House of Lords as of right from 1707 - if they were, this certainly would have been news to them, (b) there would have been no need to create them Dukes of Brandon, (c) the legal question over whether a Scottish peer who had been created a British peer after the Act of Union could sit in the House of Lords would have been rather pointless, and (d) the English and British Dukedoms of Cambridge created from 1660 onwards (and the later Marquessate of Cambridge) would have conflicted with an existing Cambridge title. However, Brendandh consistently reverts any attempt to make sense of this situation. Proteus (Talk) 10:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Lords of Parliament[edit]

I don't think a Scottish "Lord of Parliament" is exactly the same thing as a Scottish Lord pre-1707. Further, a number of lairds of free baronies, or of lesser estate (and who may also have knights) were entitled to sit in the Scottish Parliament in the 16th-century. The Scottish Lordship was based on land holding and vassalship and not defined by its role in relationship to parliament.Unoquha (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

pre-union scotland[edit]

did Scotland exist before England? why is there so little about the pre-union structure of the Scottish nobility like the seven earls? Tinynanorobots (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

this article is horrible[edit]

it contains contradictions with in the same paragraph. lacks sources, and operates on the idea that peerage = nobility, and shows a total lack of understanding of the pre-Union government and nobility of Scotland. It says that the title viscount is unique in that it uses "of" however, only lord does not use of. perhaps we should split the list off from this article? then perhaps people will see it for the stub it really is. Tinynanorobots (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Peerage of William Alexander, 1st Earl of Stirling[edit]

I am trying to figure out if William Alexander, 1st Earl of Stirling has been omitted by reason? The title of Earl of Stirling was conveyed upon William, that was already the 1st Viscount of Stirling (1630) in 1633, and this was after the Union of the Crowns (24 March 1603). The title was conveyed down by law of peerage that included the 5th Earl of Stirling. He was also created Lord Alexander of Tullibody. After the coronation in Scotland of Charles I in 1633 he was created Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Canada, and Lord Alexander of Tullibody and there was a stipulation "...each title to be inheritable by his heirs male of the name of Alexander". Otr500 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This article only lists current holders of Scottish peerages. The earldom of Stirling has been dormant since the eighteenth century. Opera hat (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Precedence of Earls[edit]

For consistency with List_of_earls_in_the_peerages_of_Britain_and_Ireland#Earls_in_the_Peerage_of_Scotland, I suggest that the older Scottish earldoms should be listed in the order given in the Decreet of Ranking of 1606, and not by seniority. Alekksandr (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)