Talk:Lords in the Baronage of Scotland

Untitled

This article contains a problem:

Lords of Regality were created between 1450 and 1707. What then are we to make of a "barony and lordship of suchandso," created long before this time, which are not on the rolls as regalities?

Form of address

I have read: [1] that a feudal lord is addressed as Lord [Placename]. Are there any official or customary guidelines for this. I haven't found anything online.121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Originally, this was indeed the case. I do not believe that there ever was any official pronouncement from the Crown to change it otherwise. After 500 years, however, the world tends to change. Britain evolved a more specifically defined parliament, and parliamentary lords have come to be differentiated as peers of the realm. Thus, in todays vernacular, "Lord Such-and-so" without an "of" in there is generally understood to be a person who is a peer.

If I may go on a rant, since I am on a toffy mission: The idea that a young duke (in possession of an expansive castle and lands consisting of thousands of acres, who will never sit in parliament, because he is busy shooting and fishing) who holds his title en baronium could somehow be lower ranking than a knight such as Elton John or even a "life peer" politician (whose trade it is to work in parliament), this is astonishing thinking. Perhaps I am simply too traditional, but someone actually published a section here stating this is so (sans references of course), so I quickly dispatched the entire silly section. A duke can be inferior to a knight? Laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.11.12 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

-- Yes, feudal lords have never been officially addressed by the crown as anything less than "Lord [Placename]." They feel disinclined to call themselves such, but probably would answer to it without qualm. This is akin the female clan chiefs who may be rightfully styled "Lady," but instead go by "Madam."

No duke is ever inferior to a knight. 38 feudal barons and 8 feudal earls signed the Scottish declaration of independence. Their dignities were given by the crown and originally consisted of thousands of acres of land. They all created knights of their own, by giving them land. I agree that the suggestion that any duke might be inferior to a knight is laughable. Everyone knows a baronet, which springs from feudal times, is superior to a knighthood. Might I suggest contemplation: Cigar, cigarette. Eagle, Eaglet. Baron, baronet. The problem arises in that there are so few feudal lords that the issue has not been addressed of late by the Crown. There are even fewer feudal earls, and I don't know of any feudal dukes who aren't already peers. I imagine that in the next 50 years we will see some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.11.207 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

IF ANYONE WANTS TO CREATE THEIR OWN THEORIES OF NOBLE PECKING ORDERS, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PROPER VENUE. DO IT IN A CHATROOM, SOMEWHERE ELSE. IF YOU HAVE LEGAL REFERENCES, FEEL FREE TO INCLUDE VERIFIABLE INFORMATION. ANY DISCUSSION SUGGESTING THAT A DUKE IS INFERIOR TO A KNIGHT IS SILLY AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR WIKIPEDIA. TAKE YOUR WACKO IDEAS ELSEWHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.178.247 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)