Talk:Lords in the Baronage of Scotland

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?

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

I have read: 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)

To the Curator of the page Lords in the Baronage of Scotland - Wikipedia kindly amend the "incumbent" field of the Lord of Leslie title with the correct formal style of the current Lord Leslie, which should be: "Dr Giacomo Merello, Baron and Lord of Leslie". Leslie (Fife) is chartered as a "Barony and Lordship", hence the incumbent can use as a formal title "Baron and Lord" and not only "Lord". The Registry of Scots Nobility (https://www.registryofscotsnobility.com/baronage/) reflects this as well. Kindly also amend the year of first creation from "16C" to 1382, the reference for your check is the Register of the Great Seal, charter no. 742 from 1382. The other fields appear correct as of today. With many thanks Judasith1234 (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to wikpedia. You appear to have a close connection to this subject matter as your wikipedia contributions are solely regarding this title. Please be aware of wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

All lordships are also baronies and are never addressed as Baron and Lord, no peerage titles is addressed this way and scottish baronage titles are only referred to this way in the most formal of documents such as a crown charter or letters patent (being baron and lord are different degrees in scotland, unlike england). Note that for Lords in the Baronage of Scotland a baron is a lord and a lord is a baron and can be used interchangeable or as per the preference of the holder. While a Scots baron - that is not a lord - is only ever called baron. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Arms Taylor Moffitt of Halydean.webp
• Baron of Arbroath.png
• Baron of Cockburn crop.png
• Earl of Wigtoun crop.png
• Fulwood crop.png
• Lord of Braemar crop.png
• Lord of Cowal crop.png
• Lord of Hailes crop.png
• Lord of Kilmarnock.png
• Lord of Pittenweem crop.png
• Lord of Slains crop.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to maintain two pages on the same topic and maintain two lists. There are many BLP issues here. @Fram redirected this page before under good rationale, what are the objections to this? Nayyn (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm working through these lists at the moment, trying to add proper sources, and I'm slightly reluctant to have them all merged into a single list, as the separation makes it easier to maintain (or more specifically, to fix) these articles. I realise that consideration shouldn't take priority, but what is the plan if the pages are merged? Will it be one large list, or will there still be separate lists based on the type of title (i.e. baron, lord, etc.)? If it will be one single enormous list, I think it will be difficult both for the readers and for editors to maintain. Charliez (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. Lords are different to Barons in the Baronage of Scotland. 185.63.220.39 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Different how so? And why is this not made clear in the article? Nayyn (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Baronage of Scotland.png
• Chapeau-removebg-preview.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This article is a mess, and I believe @Fram had it right when they attempted make this a redirect to Baronage of Scotland. First, the article contradicts itself in the central definition: the lead says a lord in the baronage is "a noble dignity of higher degree than Baron", while the list section says "a baron is a lord and a lord is a baron and can be used interchangeable [sic]". The order-of-precedence section cites Lord Stair's Institutions from 1681 to support the hierarchy, but also quotes Stair as saying lordships are "but more noble titles of a Barony", in other words the same dignity. So are the different, or are they the same, and why is the main source 350 years old?

Second, much of the text is unclear or inaccurate. The opening sentence introduces an unexplained Latin term (in baroneum) that I can't find anywhere (what I'm finding is in liberam baroniam). Much of the explanatory text doesn't explain things well. The Usage section is largely superfluous (WP:NOT#NOTGUIDE).

Most importantly, the claims about hierarchy rest almost entirely on William Wallace's Ancient Peerages from 1785 and Stair's Institutions from 1681. However, Alexander Grant's The Development of the Scottish Peerage from 1978 explains the medieval "provincial lordships" as a category that had largely ceased to exist as a separate rank by the mid-15th century, being absorbed either into the peerage as Lordships of Parliament or into earldoms. Grant does not describe a continuing "lordship in the baronage" as a distinct rank between baron and earl, and his account of the territorial dissolution of medieval lordships contradicts this article's central claim that an intermediate rank persists today. Put simply, Grant says there is no surviving separatetely-rankable "lord in the baronage" that sits between baron and earl today.

Unless someone can pull another source ouf of their hat which I haven't found, this should simply be merged into Baronage of Scotland.

Courtesy pings: @Charliez, @Daniel Plumber, @Fram

— Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 10:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)