Talk:Laird

Untitled

Wikipedia guidlines say be bold so I was and created this article. One shouldnt really merge it with lord as it is something entirely different. Its not very long at the moment so I'm hoping someone can help add a little something. Thanks! --Camaeron 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea and long overdue I say. I wikified what you started, but I'm sure a lot more could be said about the subject. Jonathan Oldenbuck 14:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this page really a high importance subject? If so why have I only just created it? I have looked everywhere on the net for more info but all that keeps coming up are those silly "buy a lairdship" cons. Perhaps a subheading about them would be an idea? --Camaeron 15:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would have thought so... The Laird is certainly an important figure in Scottish social history, I should think. As for why its only just been created, sometimes things get overlooked I suppose, especially when they redirect to something else. Anything relevant can be added, so yes, maybe the practice of selling lairdships should be covered too. Jonathan Oldenbuck 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is a bit of an edit war about the sale of tiny plots of lands to become a 'laird'. One side keeps removing the bit about Lyon Court considering such titles 'meaningless'.--Celtus (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For several months different IPs have been entering information referring to the availability of such titles: [1]. At some point, someone else rewrote the passage and supplied sources debunking the practice. The IPs have since taken to deleting the sourced passage without discussion, which suggests that a person or persons may be connected with a business that sells the foot-square plots of land. Sourced material is surely preferable, and is not attempting to promote any business venture. What may be relevant for discussion is whether any reference to these ventures needs to be included at all. In the meantime, I've been treating these deletions as vandalism. JNW (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JNW. I had thought it would be a magnet to that sort of thing when I first created the article. If I get a minute I may add a section warning about the purchase of "fake titles", this may scare any potential advertisers off! :) The Earl of Bradford has a page dedicated to the purchase of fake titles. I'm sure I can use that as a source... --Cameron* 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lord Lyon

I don't see any legal precedent to call land conservation a 'scam' since all land conservation projects like the Lochaber one exist in even the U.S where people spend a bit of money buying tiny plots and saving the land 'collectively'.

Lord Lyon never said it was illegal, fraud, or scam - He said it was 'meaningless' - which it is but the article seems to be wanted to convey that it is some sort of gross illegal scam which it is not.

People buy novelty I.D's from space, Novelty thousand dollar bills et al -- So what's the big deal about a novelty title? - It's 2009 guys ALL TITLES are novelties these days even 'Queen' of England sounds silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because there hasn't been a Kingdom of England since 1707. However, being "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is a meaningful title. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• The article clearly mentions that the titles bought on eBay and such are meaningless... RP459 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord Lyon

The Lord Lyon has a jurisdiction not only over heraldry, but also over names, titles and dignities. A Laird, in correct usage, is a person recognised by the Lord Lyon in a type of title called a territorial designation. Scotland's High Court, the Court of Session, recently recognised that the Lord Lyon has a jurisdiction to determine the correct use of such titles. The Court of Session ruled that a certain quantity of land is necessary for a territorial designation (laird status). In one instance, 2000 square metres of bare land was held to be insufficient, so it is clear that one square foot is nowhere near the league.

If the Lord Lyon says these novelty lairdships are meaningless, this means that the titles are not being used with any authority or accuracy. Traditionally, there can only be one laird of a single place. In the case of the shared ownership of estates, the most senior of the co-owners takes the designation, usually the eldest male.

Accordingly, it is incorrect to say that the Lord Lyon has no jurisdiction over lairdships, so this assertion has been deleted from the entry. Braveheart. 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you post a link to this decision or the reference? I would like to include it in the article... RP459 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And now a word from our Sponsor

The court of the Lord Lyon is the final authority in all matters heraldic, with power to create and assign arms as the court deems fit, and, with it that authority, to judge who is the rightful claimant to a title. This authority extends all the way from a gentleman up to the Crown of Scotland. Whatever one's opinion of Lyon, he is indeed the representative of the Crown. The Crown is the fons honoris, or source of honor for any title. Thus, if Lyon says that a Lairdship comprising one square foot of land held directly of the Crown is "worthless," then our aspiring Lairds, who are entitled to call themselfs anything they like, may call themselfs "Lairds" indeed but the Crown unfortunately not. If these statements I have made offend anyone reading this, or if anyone disagrees--- as my apology, I shall bestow unto you the dignity of an Earldom in the shire of your choice, and with it, the right to style yourself as the Earl of Reekyarse. --Insightfullysaid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insightfullysaid (talk • contribs) 02:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your statements, do you have any good references to back them up? Is so could you please add them to the article or add them here and I will add them... This article could really use something like this in this article. Unfortunately Lord Lyon King of Arms is not a great article when it comes to detail about the office. Thanks RP459 (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think references should be added to fortify the article from Clan Septs and Regiments of The Scottish Highlands by Frank Adam & Sir Thomas Innes of Laearny page 411 of the 1952 edition. Especialy as you have made mention of the recent Court Case in the Court of Session regarding the case of Ayer, Goldstraw and Kerr *Court of Session, Opinion of The Court In this it also confers that Sir Thomas Innes of Learney is a learned authority on the subject Note: Section (9) of the above oppinion.

I would also like to bring to your attention page 145 footnote (2) of Clan Septs and Regiments of The Scottish Highlands by Frank Adam & Sir Thomas Innes of Laearny 1952 edition; "1938 S.L.T. 49. The Ardgour Petition 1936. “ A judgement was pronounced on ‘Chieftain’ solely on the assumption that (a) the French word ‘Chieftain’ necessarily related to any Territorial Family; (b) the term ‘”branch” referred to “Clans” whereas it is equality applicable to families.” This shows that a Teritorial Designation not only confers the 'title' of 'Laird' but within the Clan System the title 'Chieftain' as that Territorial House is recognised by the Lord Lyon.

I would also like to bring to you attention that you state that the title 'Laird' is 'Non Noble' it could well be argued that as most Territorial Designations recognised by The Lord Lyon are accompanied by a Grant of Armorial Bearings and until recently, these Grants of Arms included the words "Noble in the Nobless of Scotland" that indeed these 'titles' could be regarded as 'noble titles' which I would suggest is better proof that they are indeed 'noble' as I see no official reference to them not being.Sketraw (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant to add that I am also glad to see that you are taking a stance against these 'Bucket Shops' pedaling 'titles' especially Lairdships, it makes a mockery of Scottish History and Culture and I for one don't care if I upset their feelings.Sketraw (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

etymology

The word Laird, known to have been used as far back as the 15th century and further, is a shortened form of 'laverd', which is an old Scottish word that comes from an Anglo-Saxon term meaning Lord. It also originated from the Middle English word 'lard' also meaning Lord.

The English word lord also comes from OE hlāford. Wouldn't it be simpler to say laird is a cognate of lord? —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although it does not have precisely the same meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cognates need not resemble each other in meaning. —Tamfang (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Forms of Address

The "Forms of Address" section says, "The younger children of a laird are styled as "Mr [Forename] [Surname]" if male, and "Miss [Forename] [Surname] of [Lairdship]" if female." Is the asymmetry correct there? Specifically, the males do not get "of [Lairdship]" but the females do? I suspect they both get it or both don't, but didn't see an obvious reference to indicate one way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7E00:E9B:B19C:26FB:497E:46BE (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The position on this is well documented. Debretts, for instance, clarify: [2] It may well be inequitable, however there is a presumption here that younger sons should go on to make their own way in the world and, if they can, come to possess one day their own estate. The lairdship, on the other hand, goes to the eldest male, so he bears the designation ('of [Lairdship], younger'). All the daughters - whether younger or older - take the territorial designation (or 'of [Lairdship]' bit). This is because they retain the family's status until married. Then they carry the status of their husband (the presumption being that they adopt his surname, and any lairdship designation of his should he have one). This is obviously all based on traditional rather than modern values, but this is when these designations stem from. It is also worth noting that a distinction is made between females when there is no male heir. Then the eldest is 'Miss (or even sometimes 'Maid') [Surname] of [Lairdship]' and any younger sisters have the same surname with the designation, but their forenames are also given. This reveals that the eldest is the heiress. Editor8888 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laird. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426161418/http://www.thefrasers.com/nessie/news/nesspapr708.html to http://www.thefrasers.com/nessie/news/nesspapr708.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307205822/http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/scottish-and-irish-titles/scottish-feudal-baronies to http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/scottish-and-irish-titles/scottish-feudal-baronies

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) 16:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)