Fake Scots Titles

[thescot]

I thought you wanted to be Baron Gimpy of Waycross, 4th Laird of Ellijay, Hereditary Chief of Vidalia.

Of that ilk!

[MacConnachie]

If someone else has posted this or similar already, and I have missed it, then my humblest apologies.

I am of the opinion that the Bard himself said it best, in one of the verses of "Is There For Honest Poverty"

Ye see yon birkie ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that,
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

True nobility is of the mind. There is sufficient evidence of centuries of in-breeding amongst the noble houses of Europe, up through the early 20th Century, to warrant the end of all peerage, imho. Those of us "Yanks" whose forbears rebelled against the concept of the Divine Right of Kings and won their own and their descendants rights to forego such inanities would indeed "look and laugh at a' " this. Fine for the Scots and other Brits who feel they must uphold ancestral claims against others who were always trying to take it from them, in a battle-ready quid pro quo. Fine for those who wish to play the game. Fine, also for those fools with hubris enough to believe they can rally sufficient other fools to them to advance their cause by sheer force of number, threat, or nauseatingly protracted processes. Fine, also, for those who wish to pledge fealty and allegiance to a Chief or a Lairdie. As for me, Burns had it right, and in the words of the old Irish sergeant of the Maine regiment in the film Gettysburg "I damn ALL gentlemen." My Duncan forbears left the old country in the late 17th Century to escape the tyranny of the Stuart kings. Any who may have departed due to subsequent monarchs, up through German Geordie, were simply following in their footsteps. Swear allegiance to a Clan Chief? Give me damn good reason, and I may entertain the thought . . .

[macwilkin]

If someone else has posted this or similar already, and I have missed it, then my humblest apologies.

I am of the opinion that the Bard himself said it best, in one of the verses of "Is There For Honest Poverty"

Ye see yon birkie ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that,
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

True nobility is of the mind. There is sufficient evidence of centuries of in-breeding amongst the noble house of Europe, up through the early 20th Century, to warrant the end of all peerage, imho. Those of us "Yanks" whose forbears rebelled against the concept of the Divine Right of Kings and won their own and their descendants rights to forego such inanities would indeed "look and laugh at a' " this. Fine for the Scots and other Brits who feel they must uphold ancestral claims against others who were always trying to take it from them, in a battle-ready quid pro quo. Fine for those who wish to play the game. Fine, also for those fools with hubris enough to believe they can rally sufficient other fools to them to advance their cause by sheer force of number, threat, or nauseatingly protracted processes. Fine, also, for those who wish to pledge fealty and allegiance to a Chief or a Lairdie. As for me, Burns had it right, and in the words of the old Irish sergeant of the Maine regiment in the film Gettysburg "I damn ALL gentlemen." My Duncan forbears left the old country in the late 17th Century to escape the tyranny of the Stuart kings. Any who may have departed due to subsequent monarchs, up through German Geordie, were simply following in their footsteps. Swear allegiance to a Clan Chief? Give me damn good reason, and I may entertain the thought . . .

Not to be pedantic, but "we" didn't rebel against Divine Right in 1776; that idea was essentially removed from British politics with the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The acts of Parliament, not George III, caused the Revolution, although we tend to see only our side of the story. "German Geordie" was George I, btw, NOT George III, who was more of a Constitutional Monarch -- and keep in mind, the majority of Highlanders in North America in 1776 were loyal to him, because of a variety of reasons. While we like to think of the ex-Jacobites joining in the fray, religious and political differences caused many of them to fight as Loyalists or try to remain neutral, with many losing lands and property at the hands of rebel mobs.

Remember the history, but our mutual stand against the forces of totalitarianism back in 1941 erased much of the comments above, at least in my personal opinion.

Please do not speak for me as an American citizen; I have nothing but respect for the customs and traditions of the land where my ancestors resided, and wouldn't dare critcize them with a "we're better than you" attitude.

As I remember, there was no discussion of "swearing allegiance" to clan chiefs in this thread. Needless to say, I do not agree with your opinion, even though I do agree with your ability to express it.

T.

[O'Callaghan]

I should point out that Andrew Lloyd Webber has been a Peer of the Realm since 1997 and thus has the title of Baron in his own right.

I wasn't aware of that, but nonetheless, he did become a squire through buying an estate when he wasn't yet a peer.

FWIW, he probably still isn't Lord Webber, because the title of a peerage is still based on a physical location, not a surname, and it doesn't have to be the name of his manor (after all, many people have multiple titles with widely scattered geographical links).

Some people have asked for, and sometimes recieved, titles that match their surname, when elevated to the peerage. Others of leftish inclinations have been granted titles named after working class inner city neighbourhoods at their own request.

[Downunder Kilt]

Just for the sake of completeness

Andrew Lloyd Webber was knighted by Elizabeth II in 1992.

In 1997, Elizabeth II made him a life peer as Baron Lloyd-Webber, of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire. He sits as a Conservative member of the House of Lords.

[tripleblessed]

Much of the loss of land and property by Loyalists happened not at the hands of "rebel mobs" but by confiscation through the courts after the cessation of hostilities. Not by any means to say there were NO mobs, but let's "remember the history" and note that many homes were burned by both British regulars and Tory militias, often turning women and children out of their beds and seizing all foodstuffs and livestock. These policies recruited many men for the Continental Line. One woman, who was turned out with two small children into the winter night to watch her house burn on another occasion was traveling on horseback with these same two children, small enough that both were on the horse with her, and had her horse shot out from under her by British troops. Just to be fair.

Cajunscot makes valid corrections, though, and accuracy is of great value. My gggg -grandfather Norman Morrison sold his land in N. Carolina and returned to Skye with his wife Christian Gillis and their children, returning after the war and re-purchasing their land. Their daughter married Duncan Hughes, late of Kingoldrum, Angus, who remained through the war and worked with or fought for (unclear so far) Loyalist forces.

I applaud all for standing for their beliefs. Period.

[McClef]

I wasn't aware of that, but nonetheless, he did become a squire through buying an estate when he wasn't yet a peer.

FWIW, he probably still isn't Lord Webber, because the title of a peerage is still based on a physical location, not a surname, and it doesn't have to be the name of his manor (after all, many people have multiple titles with widely scattered geographical links).

Some people have asked for, and sometimes recieved, titles that match their surname, when elevated to the peerage. Others of leftish inclinations have been granted titles named after working class inner city neighbourhoods at their own request.

A couple of points:

The word "Squire" has had several uses in history, including that of property holders. Lloyd Webber purchased Sydmonton Court in the late 1970s but did not go around calling himself "Squire Lloyd Webber" nor was he known as such when referred to by others. He was not like Squire Trelawney in Treasure Island who is well known by that appellation.

Hereditary squireships in this respect were due to inheriting the property (as per the gentleman you cited earlier). But if the property is then sold (such as because of death duties or simply lack of money to sustain the upkeep of the property) then the honorific would pass to the new purchaser.

A territorial designation is not an automatic requirement of a peerage nor does it require any residence or administration of the area that the peerage mentions. This may have been common in past centuries but is no longer the case. The Dukes of Devonshire have happily lived in and owned land in Derbyshire and the Dukes of Norfolk in Sussex with little or no actual connection to the areas from which they derive their titles for some considerable time. The same applies for royal duchies with the exemptions of those of Cornwall and Lancaster which are still administered by the Crown.

Whereas a territorial aspect is often included in a new creation, it is nevertheless not part of the main title. There is the name then there will be a comma, and what follows the comma is not required to be used.

So Baron Lloyd-Webber may be called Lord Lloyd-Webber without the territorial bit having to be mentioned. Interestingly enough his surname never used to be hyphenated though!

All new peerages are life ones and not heritable. The last possible heritable ones were that of George Thomas, former Speaker of the House of Commons who became Viscount Tonypandy, of Rhondda in the County of Mid Glamorgan (note the comma and Viscount Whitelaw, of Penrith in the County of Cumbria again note the comma) Thomas was unmarried and had no heir in any case and Whitelaw only had female heirs who could could not inherit).

The practice had been that former Prime Ministers would be given an Earldom (such as Clement Atlee, Anthony Eden and Harold MacMillan) and former Speakers would be given a Viscountcy if they so desired.

Churchill was even offered a Dukedom, which he declined. Since MacMillan (who became the Earl of Stockton but took 20 years following leaving office to accept his Peerage) former PMs have only elected to become Barons and Baronesses which is the non-heritable rank allowed under the Life Peerages legislation. Theoretically Harold Wilson and James Callaghan could have become Earls and Margaret Thatcher could have been a Countess and therefore have had an heritable title to pass on to their male heirs but as this no longer gives the heirs an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords I assume they saw it as pointless. Two former PMs - John Major and Tony Blair have so far not taken up the option to become Peers in the first place and neither did Edward Heath when he finally stood down from the Commons.

The territorial aspect following the comma is not necessarily because of someone's alleged political leanings. It could be a reference to where they were born and/or raised or where they served as a Member of Parliament or where they live or somewhere that has a special significance for them. It is also a useful way of differentiating a Peer from someone else who might have the same name such as Baron Smith or Baron Jones.

[Sketraw]

Well folks as promised and I am sure no surprise to anyone. I am one of the people behind Fake Scots Titles there are others but it is up to them if they wish to reveal their identities.

I would have done so before but there were a few issues I had to deal with first. Anyway just wanted to be up-front.

[creagdhubh]

Not to be pedantic, but "we" didn't rebel against Divine Right in 1776; that idea was essentially removed from British politics with the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The acts of Parliament, not George III, caused the Revolution, although we tend to see only our side of the story. "German Geordie" was George I, btw, NOT George III, who was more of a Constitutional Monarch -- and keep in mind, the majority of Highlanders in North America in 1776 were loyal to him, because of a variety of reasons. While we like to think of the ex-Jacobites joining in the fray, religious and political differences caused many of them to fight as Loyalists or try to remain neutral, with many losing lands and property at the hands of rebel mobs.

Remember the history, but our mutual stand against the forces of totalitarianism back in 1941 erased much of the comments above, at least in my personal opinion.

Please do not speak for me as an American citizen; I have nothing but respect for the customs and traditions of the land where my ancestors resided, and wouldn't dare critcize them with a "we're better than you" attitude.

As I remember, there was no discussion of "swearing allegiance" to clan chiefs in this thread. Needless to say, I do not agree with your opinion, even though I do agree with your ability to express it.

T.

Wow, well said Todd! Hear, hear!!!

[macwilkin]

Much of the loss of land and property by Loyalists happened not at the hands of "rebel mobs" but by confiscation through the courts after the cessation of hostilities. Not by any means to say there were NO mobs, but let's "remember the history" and note that many homes were burned by both British regulars and Tory militias, often turning women and children out of their beds and seizing all foodstuffs and livestock. These policies recruited many men for the Continental Line. One woman, who was turned out with two small children into the winter night to watch her house burn on another occasion was traveling on horseback with these same two children, small enough that both were on the horse with her, and had her horse shot out from under her by British troops. Just to be fair.

Cajunscot makes valid corrections, though, and accuracy is of great value. My gggg -grandfather Norman Morrison sold his land in N. Carolina and returned to Skye with his wife Christian Gillis and their children, returning after the war and re-purchasing their land. Their daughter married Duncan Hughes, late of Kingoldrum, Angus, who remained through the war and worked with or fought for (unclear so far) Loyalist forces.

I applaud all for standing for their beliefs. Period.

I never denied Loyalist atrocities; however the "Patriot myth" of the Revolution frequently vilifies "Tories" to the point of hyperbole; I call it the "Star Wars Syndrome". The average Loyalist (or for that matter, British regular) was not an Imperial Stormtrooper.

I would remind you, sir (btw, would you mind introducing yourself -- my name's Todd) of Alexander Hamilton, who rescued Loyalist Myles Cooper, President of King's College (now Columbia) in New York from being tarred and feathered (which was not a quaint activity for the tourists) by a Rebel Mob. Hamilton also spoke about the need for the new Republic to respect the property rights of Loyalists, and for Americans to pay their debts owed to Glasgow and Birmingham merchants, and not use Independence as a way to shirk on them.

For an excellent look at what the Highland Loyalists endured in the Revolution, Duane Meyer's The Highland Scots of North Carolina is well worth perusing.

Apologies to John for the OT rant.

T.