Talk:Feudal baron

Starts with heading

This article starts with a heading. It should start with a lede. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rationalisation of feudal barony articles

I propose the following as a logical structure for the broad area of the feudal barony:

• "Feudal barony" (effectively an entry level disambiguation page, to be created by renaming Feudal baron and de-merging its constituent elements into the articles listed below. Feudal baron mainly concerns Scottish baronies and is 99% identical to Prescriptive barony. The latter needs to be merged into the former.)
• English feudal barony- article to be renamed (done), and to receive merger from Barony (country subdivision)
• Scottish feudal barony- article to be renamed and to receive demerged Scottish elements from Feudal baron
• Irish feudal barony- new article, to be de-merged from Feudal baron. Done, text copied, but not demerged pending consultation.
• Scottish feudal lordship - no changes needed, ideal format.
• Marcher lordship to be renamed & merged from List of Marcher lordships

I am pasting the above to talk pages of the other articles concerned. Your comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Current legal status

I have removed the following text: Now, the dignity of a feudal baron is a personal title and carries with it no special powers beyond the title of 'baron', certain qualities and precedence, and a few heraldic privileges. All of these assertions are false. Barony by tenure was abolished in 1660. If the originator wishes to restore any one or all of these assertions, credible sources will be needed.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC))

I think there's little hope of salvaging this topic: Innes of Learney deliberately abused his role as Lord Lyon to enlarge his judicial authority and to impose novel interpretations of law and history on Scottish heraldry and Scottish gentry, generating an ever-swelling pool of wannabe aristos who discover that Innes has pried open the gates of nobility to their entrée -- and they are swarming in, unwilling to entertain any interpretation that doesn't buttress what they deem to be their right and sole opportunity in the 21st century to purchase nobility and a hereditary title into the bargain. Anyone attempting to sort out the truth and unanswered questions from the hype in this POV apologia should, whatever sources you finally rely upon for citation, start off with George Lucki's 10 point analysis of feudal baronies here and conclude with François Velde's trenchant deconstruction of Innes's modus operandi here. FactStraight (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ditto last

I have removed further erroneous text: These titles of tenure were titles of dignity; not peerage. Feudal baronies are among the only titles that can be legally transferred as they are considered non-physical property within the UK.

• They were indeed peerage titles, as feudal barons had seats in parliament until largely replaced by barons by writ.
• As baronies by tenure were abolished in 1660 they do not exist today, thus cannot be "property", transferable or otherwise.

Again, if originator wishes to restore, credible sources will be required.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC))