Talk:Earl of Stirling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please cite sources when adding new information

Before making large changes to this article please discuss first, here on the talk page. Make sure that you cite sources. It would also help if sources could be found for the information currently in the article. Editors should also be aware of the three revert rule, which is official policy. Feel free to direct general editing questions towards my talk page, but things related to this article should be discussed here. Petros471 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


To all persons leaving me off of the list of Alexander Earls of Stirling: Be advised that I intend to defend my legal rights in appropriate jurisdictions. Stirling (Earl of Stirling) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs) .

Please read WP:NLT and WP:V policies. --Hansnesse 09:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, his intention to defend his alleged legal rights is not necessarily a legal threat against another wikipedia user. --Cymsdale 21:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been unable to find the case "Alexander v. United Kingdom" on HUDOC, which was added by the above. I may have missed it, however. --Hansnesse 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Alexander

There is some dispute over this text; as no evidence has been forthcoming about it, nor has the claim been recognized by the British Gov't. I am moving it here for further discussion.

In August 1999 an American, Timothy Alexander of Greenan, Baron of Greenan in Scotland and former Scottish Editor of Burke's Peerage, used the ancient Scots Peerage Law process of an Assumption-at-Law to assume the titles. This is the normal process used for succession to dormant Scottish Peerage titles and the holder of an assumed title remains the title holder until and unless successfully challenged in a proper legal venue. No such legal action has been undertaken, nor is one possible under current law (House of Lords Act of 1999; Royal Warrant of June 2004 establishing the Roll of the Peerage). Scots Peerage Law differs on several major points from English Peerage Law and the process of succession is one of the most important differences, with English (and GB and UK) title holders having to first prove their claim, whereas Scottish title holders first assume their titles and are subject to a legal challenge only thereafter ("Hewlett on Scottish Dignities"; "The Sixteen Peers of Scotland"). In December 1999, the current Lord Stirling sat in the Peers Gallery on the floor of the House of Lords, as the Earl of Stirling, sitting as the guest of the then Leader of the House of Lords (House of Lords).
The current Earl of Stirling has petitioned for a resettlement-by-letters patent to eliminate the rules of male primogeniture with regard to the succession to his family's titles. This has not been approved by the present British Government and the current Earl lost an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights, Alexander v. United Kingdom, #23913/04) over this issue on a legal point in 2005.

As noted above, I have been unable to locate (albeit after a very cusory search) the above case. Further thoughts on inclusion/removal? --Hansnesse 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's utter nonsense. Proteus (Talk) 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Unless someone puts forth a valid source, it should not be included in the article. --Cymsdale 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You self appointed experts are violating my rights. Stirling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs) .

Umm.. If you are in fact the Earl of Sterling you're not supposed to alter your own article. And currently, the factuality of that section of the article is being disputed. Either provide a source supporting the information in that article, or drop the issue, please.--Vercalos 02:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been provided, if you would read the article you would see the sources.

I've blocked 68.179.175.185 for 24 hours and legal threats. He won't be able to respond here for the moment, it might head off a renewed edit war if you could try and work out some differences on his talk page for now. It's frustrating to see responses and not be able to answer them. Just a thought, thanks, Rx StrangeLove 03:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion

First off let me say that the owner of the Baronage Press is an associate of a former associate of mine who I was involved in a legal dispute with. I would have brought a lawsuit against him years ago but with his legal record and lack of resources, I felt that any such lawsuit was simply a waist of money on my part. I do note that you have again made reference to his false comments.

The comments that you give in reference to "the usual way ...." are largely reflective of English Peerage Law NOT Scottish Peerage Law and in any case are totally out of date and for very specific legal reasons do NOT apply in my case. Once again, you are dealing in matters that you do not understand but don't seem to mind injuring me in the process.

Your comments referring to "rights under the title" and the title as name simply do NOT make sense or reflect Scots Peerage Law. Shame on you for speaking with authority when you have no background or foundation in the relevent law or history.

I have given you the correct information regarding the EU Court of Human Rights case as provided by the Court. If you are too lazy to find the material do not blame me.

There is NO COURT CASE challenging my assumption of the title nor has there ever been such a court case. I have never said that there was any challenge of my assumption in a court of law or in any proper legal venue and in fact I have said the opposite. Again, your facts are all wrong, you speak with authority about a matter that you do not understand and yet have no problem in causing serious harm to me in the process.

The reference to the House of Lords was given when it was demanded of me that I prove what I had said about sitting in the House of Lords (Peers Gallery) as the Earl of Stirling.

Either remove the false information on me and the reference to it in all material on these sites or I will take legal steps. Change the entry for the Earl of Stirling to reflect the legally correct status of the earldom and my holding of same or face a serious legal action in one or more nations.

Stirling
I've blocked this editor for making legal threats in several parts of this page. The block is 48 hours in length. Feel free to discuss on his talk page if you'd like. Rx StrangeLove 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


More discussion of this has taken place at User_talk:68.179.175.185, and User_talk:Hansnesse#Stirling. I am moving the comment from my talk page here for further discussion. --Hansnesse 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comments that "the court" has to establish the succession to the earldom, this could not be further from the truth. Scots Peerage Law does NOT work like that. This is exactually what I am speaking of when I say that I do not intend to argue with people who do not understand Scots Peerage Law. In approximately 18 years I have had extensive dealing with senior government officials in the United Kingdom and Canada, including the Queen herself. I have sat in the House of Lords, in the Peers Gallery (I am not a UK citizen and cannot be a working Peer) AS THE Earl of Stirling (that can be confirmed via the House of Lords, hence the entry giving the House of Lords as a reference). I have been contacted by UK cabinet members, in writing, as the Earl of Stirling. I gave specific reference information to the case that was before the EU Human Rights Court (this was a case over the male only rules of succession; not a case over my assumption of the titles; it was referenced by me as a outside source to establish that I am not just makeing this all up; you have to dig to confirm it ~ it is totally unfair to just say that you can't locate the case!). I have followed Scots Peerage Law in considerable detail with my assumption of the titles (some specific reference material was given by myself; that COULD HAVE been checked into). I have NOT been legally challenged in any legal venue in about 18 years over my right to the Earldom (under Scots Peerage Law one assumes the title and then and ONLY IF SUCCESSFULLY challenged in a proper legal venue does one lose the rights to the title; in fact, due to the specific history of my claim and the changes in the law/House of Lords rules/etc., there is no legal way to challenge my succession at the present time, and this was referenced by me). I was the Honorary Scottish Editor at Burke's Peerage close to 20 years ago under the late Harold Brooks-Baker and I have extensive documents/etc. that can prove this; where is there evidence that I WAS NOT the Scottish Editor? There have been comments that the "government" does not recognize me as Earl of Stirling. I would dearly like to see some WRITTEN EVIDENCE of this. I am not involved in Wikipedia except that I sought to update the information on the Earl of Stirling. There was a series of comments made that are false and I insist that Wikipedia not continue to deflame me or to continue to list the Earls of Stiring without listing me. Everyone there seems to get very upset that I have mentioned my legal rights, sorry this is a most serious matter and I will not let it go away. In reviewing the comments made by others, I see no evidence that anyone has done any serious research into this, or that anyone knows anything about the complex field of Scots Peerage Law. A peerage is a very serious matter, and in this case the peerage is linked to a set of historically important Canadian honorific hereditary offices-of-state. I have held off taking the matter to the law courts, because I am trying to be reasonable and I have no general objection to Wikipedia except what has happened in my specific case. But I want you to understand that what has been happening here is a most serious matter that I cannot allow to continue. Stirling

Thanks for the thorough response. As I read it, your claim is that you have assumed the title, and that under Scottish peerage law, a claim of title is sufficient to grant it, notwithstanding a court case challenging it. This seems to be at odds with the findings of baronage, which indicates
The usual way to establish the right to inherit a title is to apply for a Writ of Summons to attend Parliament (a procedure that will have to be reviewed in the light of new legislation abolishing the hereditary parliamentary rights of peers), and then the Committee for Privileges examines the validity of the documentation supporting the line of descent of the claimant and his relationship to the previous holder of the peerage title.
This, it should be noted, is to establish the rights under the title, rather than just the assumption of the title. If you are not assuming the rights under the title "Earl of Stirling," it seems to me that all it is is a name, and thus is not notable by Wikipedia standards (anymore so than myself assuming by personal decree, another title), and certainly impossible to verify.
Regarding further attempts at verification, I think there is simply a miscommunication here. I took the information given on the court case you discuss to my local law school library, and neither myself nor the librarian were able to locate it. If you could provide further information about it, such as the volume and page as would be given in a traditional case citation, rather than the docket number which you seem to have provided, I would be happy to investigate further. Likewise, a citation to "House of Lords" is not a source; no library has such a volume. What is needed is a published source, per Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Not to belabor the point, but personal papers are likewise not really a good source of the information, since no one else can check them. Information should also be verifiable, not assumed true until disproven (I'm sure you can see the wisdom in this). So your question "where is there evidence that I WAS NOT the Scottish Editor?" is not answerable. If it is to be in an encyclopedia, we must be able to find that fact in a published source.
In short, I do think a published source for all your claims, including the assumption of title, is important for inclusion in Wikipedia. If such is impossible, I do not think it should be included per verifiability policy
Thanks again for the reply, I look forward to a fruitful discussion. --Hansnesse 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lexis/Nexis search results

Please note that my pasting these articles here could be seen as copyvio, so please don't put them in the main article space. I feel that these articles are necessary to establish to the mostly American editors the history and context of Mr. Alexander's activities. Thatcher131 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron of Greenan

Copyright 1992 Caledonian Newspapers Ltd. The Herald (Glasgow) February 6, 1992 American loses claim for sole rights to Scots title and castle

A JUDGE ruled yesterday that the American Baron of Greenan was not the sole owner of the title and its associated castle in Ayrshire.

A firm specialising in the sale of heraldic titles and land was granted an order by Lord Weir at the Court of Session in Edinburgh saying that it had a partnership with Timothy Alexander, and was entitled to a share of any profit from the sale of Greenan Castle and the barony.

Mr Alexander, 41, a history teacher and property investor from Evansville, Indiana, is of Scots descent and is the president of a Delaware corporation, Historic Scottish Properties.

The court heard that Lord Ailsa sold the castle and barony in 1988 for £15,000 and that the title was recorded in Mr Alexander's name.

Brooks Marketing, of Rickett Street, London, which is controlled by Burke's Peerage Partnership, claimed it had an agreement with Mr Alexander who was to act as a heraldic consultant.

It was said that Mr Alexander, who is also known as Baron Alexander of Greenan, paid £3000 of the purchase price of the castle, with Brooks paying the remainder.

The firm said the plan was to sell the property as soon as possible to a suitable purchaser, with the profits being shared.

Brooks said that suitable prospective purchasers were found who were prepared to buy the property, including the barony, for sums "considerably in excess of the total expense of purchase".

But the firm claimed that Mr Alexander had deliberately obstructed negotiations and refused to agree to the sale.

Mr Alexander was said to have declared that he was the sole owner of the castle and Baron of Greenan, and was entitled to make exclusive use of the title.

He said there had been no partnership between him and Brooks over the the castle and barony.

Brooks asked the Judge to declare that there was a partnership and that the castle and barony were assets of it.

Mr Alexander was not represented before Lord Weir, who said the American had been told of the hearing and the possible result of his failing to appear.

The Judge said that he was prepared to grant the order sought by Brooks, which will now negotiate with Mr Alexander over the sale of the castle and the barony.

[edit] Greenan part 2

Copyright 1997 The Scotsman Publications Ltd. Scotland on Sunday August 17, 1997, Sunday

Lack of chivalry over sale of fabled Camelot sparks joust

BYLINE: Ron Mckay

CAMELOT is for sale. But if you're interested you won't just need a large chequebook, you'll need a long legal sword and suitable financial armour.

According to some Arthurian researchers, the locus of the Round Table was at Greenan, three miles south-west of Ayr, where there's a ruin of a castle, now for sale, as well as the barony which goes with it. And there, sirrah, is the problem.

Because the Baron of Greenan, aka Timothy Alexander of Indiana, is hopping mad. He says that the title is being sold over his head and is threatening to sue anyone who buys it all the way to the House of Lords.

Alexander, an American historian of Scottish descent, bought the title and the castle for £ 15,000 in 1988. However, four years later he lost a court action when it was ruled that he didn't have the sole right to the title because Brooks Marketing, a company owned by the directors of Burke's Peerage, had put up £ 12,000 of the price and were Alexander's partners in the deal and the title. The game plan, rather unchivalrously, had been to buy and sell Camelot and make a fat profit as quickly as possible.

When I tracked down the baron he claimed that he had been stitched up, that he hadn't been able to afford to defend the action and that his title could not be legally sold without his permission. "I would say to anyone who thinks they can buy the title that I will challenge their right to use it. They would be buying a pig in a poke, because my rights and privileges as baron are enshrined in Article 22 of the 1707 Treaty of Union and can only be taken away by an Act of Attainment. Anyone who buys this castle and title is going to end up going all the way to the House of Lords."

I tried to talk to Harold Brooks-Baker, of Brooks Marketing and Burke's Peerage, but after following a trail of answering machine messages I ended up in France on a number where no one knew of him. But I did talk to a nice woman at the company handling the sale who told me that this was a surplus title.

"What you find is that quite a number of the aristocracy have more than one title and sell off one or two when times get a bit tough." She added that there were various statutory obligations involved in the maintenance of the stately ruin, "a bit like a tree under a preservation order".

Whatever else, a good old-fashioned joust is on the cards.

[edit] Stirling?

The Express May 5, 2001

AMERICAN 'EARL' BIDS TO CHANGE SEXIST LAW

BYLINE: BY TIM BUGLER

AN American historian who claims to be a Scottish earl is attempting to overturn Scotland's "sexist" laws of succession.

Estate agent Timothy Alexander, 50, from Evansville, Indiana, claims to have acquired the title of Earl of Stirling using the little-known Scots peerage law of "assumption."

He also claims to have attained the ranks of Lord Lieutenant of Canada, Lord Alexander of Tullibody, Earl of Dovan, and Chief of the Clan Alexander. Now he wants the Queen to change the law of male primogeniture, so that his sister can inherit his titles upon his death.

The 'Earl', who deals in historic European real estate, has also written to Labour-controlled Stirling Council to enlist its support in putting his case to Scots Secretary Helen Liddell, whom he hopes will take it to the Queen. He said yesterday: "I claimed the Earldom 11 years ago. My wife died in 1999 and we didn't have children. I have a younger brother. He doesn't have children either. I want to pass my titles on to my sister, who does. Why should my sister be disenfranchised because of gender? A Labour government and a woman Secretary of State should be supportive of this."

Signing himself "Stirling" in a letter to all 22 council members, the 'Earl' says it would be "helpful" if councillors wrote to Mrs Liddell to back his case. He said: "I am a voice in the wilderness calling for an end to the legally-based sexism of male primogeniture. I have this grand-sounding title, but I'm really just a nobody living in Indiana.

"I have no influence on the Government, so I'm asking Stirling Council for help in convincing the Secretary of State to recommend to Her Majesty that I be given a resettlement to myself and my heirs, by Letters Patent of my titles in birth rank order, without the rules of male succession.

"Scots Peerage Law does allow for it. The requested resettlement would eliminate sexist rules. While it would not change all peerage titles, it would be an important beginning."

The Earldom of Stirling was created in 1633 when Charles I visited Stirling Castle and made Viscount Stirling an earl. The last Earl died in 1768. There have been two bogus claims to the earldom since his death, but Mr Alexander insists he is the genuine heir.

One of his claims in his letter to the council - to have been "once the Scottish Editor at the famous Burke's Peerage publishing house in London" - was challenged last night however. Harold Brook-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, said: "Mr Alexander was never the editor of any of our publications."

Mr Brook-Baker said the head of the Stirling family was Archibald Stirling of Keir, former husband of Dame Diana Rigg. Mr Brook-Baker added: "He would be very surprised to learn of Mr Alexander's claims to be the Earl."

Goodness! Of course, the late Mr Brooks-Baker himself was never editor of any publication known as Burke's Peerage... see his article or better, this talk page for more on the eminently quotable but never authoritative Mr. Brooks-Baker. Though in this case, he seems to have gotten it right<g>. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Doubly interesting since given the claim of 'Stirling' above:
I was the Honorary Scottish Editor at Burke's Peerage close to 20 years ago under the late Harold Brooks-Baker and I have extensive documents/etc. that can prove this;
--Hansnesse 01:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
What Baker was relying on was that people would hear "Burke's Peerage", the name of a company, and think of "Burke's Peerage", the name of a publication (with which the company had no current connection). Lord only knows what the "honorary" Scottish editor of an imaginary publication does.... - Nunh-huh 01:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that in the 2001 article Brooks-Baker felt no need to mention, and the reporter was apparently unable to discover, the earlier dust-up over Greenan...he acts as though he's never heard of the guy, when clearly they had some kind of relationship in the past. john k 15:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful what you wish for...

It sounds like an article about the controversy over the title of Stirling would be more interesting than the Earl of Stirling article itself. Is it notable enough to warrant its own article? Unfortunately, my instinct would say no. --Cymsdale 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting perhaps, but not of encyclopedic value. People make bogus claims all the time. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Aye, and drawing attention to a bogus claim really only benefits the person making it. Although, I'm going to admit too much ignorance about this particular issue to state for sure if it is bogus or not. --Cymsdale 23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the article is fine the way it is and we do not need to mention Mr. Tim Alexander aka Earl Stirling. However, since Mr. Stirling was making legal threats about being left out of the article, it is worth mentioning that we could add him to the article using these verifiable independent sources, and the article would not only be unflattering but legally unassailable.Thatcher131 00:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The information about Tim Alexander’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is available to any one who asks for copies of the records that are available to the public. Application no. 23913/04 is the correct identification of the appeal that was filed on 1 July 2004 (which happens to be Canada Day, in Canada). The Deputy Section Registrar, Mark Villigar, wrote in 2005 to Mr. Alexander: The case was heard on 6 October 2005 by a Committee of three judges. They “decided under Article 28 of the Convention to declare the application inadmissible because it did not comply with the requirements set out in Articles 34 and35 of the Convention. In light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found that they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. This decision is final and not subject to any appeal to either the Court, including its Great Chamber, or any other body. …The file will be destroyed one year after the dispatch of this letter.” (Oct 2006). It should be noted further that HUDOC only publishes decisions taken by a Chamber of at least seven judges.

Mr. Alexander also refers to two books: The Sixteen Peers of Scotland: An Account of the Elections of the Representative Peers of Scotland 1707 – 1959, by Sir James Fergusson of Kilkerran, 8th Baronet (1960); Notes on Dignities in the Peerage of Scotland Which are Dormant or which Have Been Forfeited by William Oxenham Hewlett, F.S.A., (1882).

Having reviewed both books twice, I have failed to find the specific allusion to Assumption-at-law that Mr. Alexander makes. I would be grateful if he could point them out. On the contrary, there are some statements of interest. 1. In Notes, on page 10 there is the statement “… the Stair case appears to show that no power can exist in any person to alter or affect the course of the descent of a Peerage of Scotland as previously settled, by any act done after the Union.” 2. Also on the same page appears “It was the practice to restore dormant Dignities either by Charter, Letters Patent, or Royal Warrant.” 3. In The Sixteen, on page 61 appears the statement in the chapter “Claimants” that “In general, the clerks adopted the view that they were bound to admit the vote of any Peer whose title was on the Union Roll.” 4. And on page 62, appears “It is right to make plain that the acceptance of a claimant’s vote at a peerage election in no way establishes or even strengthens his right to a title, and does not justify his assuming it.”

On 24 July 1999, the National Post ( a Canadian newspaper) reported that “His claim is based largely on the fact that Scottish case law recognizes the ‘senior male’ in a clan as a potential chieftain. Mr. Alexander claims to be the senior male of the Clan Alexander because he has already purchased a Scottish barony – a piece of property in Ayshire with a set of castle ruins that automatically qualified him for the title of Baron of Greenan. ‘I am the sole member of the nobility of Scotland who is also a member of this clan.”

Since it has been reported elsewhere that the court ordered the Barony sold by his partners, his initial claim seems to have dispelled.

The same article repeats the comments of Elizabeth Roads, Lyon Clerk, that “This title has been dormant for quite some time now and I don’t think he’s proved to the Crown’s satisfaction that this title should be resettled.”

There is a lack of evidence of genealogical credibility that links him to the First Earl of Stirling. When a peerage is granted with the condition that it is inherited by the heirs male of the grantee, there is an interesting situation in Scots law. After the descendent males of the body have been extinguished, then one begins to look at the First Earl’s brothers and their descendent males. After that, one looks at the First Earl’s uncles and their males, ad infinitum.

fitzw 27 March 2006 10:29 pm EST

Tim Stirlimg gave a passing reference to the Roll of the Peerage. This was initiated by Letters Patent issued by Her Majesty on 1st of June 2004 after the Blair government did its thing with the House of Lords in 1999. The Roll lists who is entitled to be addressed as a Peer in the historic peerages of the UK and Ireland. More interesting is the condition by clause 3 of the Letters Patent that government officials will be prohibited from addressing a person as a Peer unless that person is entered on the Roll. The Roll is maintained within the Department for Constitutional Affairs (under direction of the Lord Chancellor.) Is Tim Alexander enrolled there? fitzw 15 April 2006 11:48 pm EST.

As he'd have to have proved his claim to be entered, and he hasn't, then he can't be. The article is accurate and these claims unprovenAlci12 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide a link to the Roll to PROVE your position; or perhaps there is a legal reason why it has not been published?!!

[edit] Put simply...

It is true that according to Scottish law anyone with a peerage automatically becomes Chief of the Clan of their name.(This might be true only if the title is the same as the name, without any territorial additions. For example, Lord Jones might be chief of Clan Jones but Lord Jones of Smithville would not. fitzw) Mr. Alexander thought that, since he had bought the Barony of Greenan, he should become Chief of the Clan. He has misunderstood that the Barony of Greenan is NOT a peerage, but is a FEUDAL TITLE, and therefore simply having one does not affect the chiefship of Clans in any way - if this were the case, there would be dozens of claims to Chiefships! Alexander thought that if he was Chief of Clan Alexander he could become Earl of Stirling - but the only way he could become Chief of the Clan would be by proving he were the rightful claimant to the Earldom, which he clearly has not. He has confused the Peerage with the Feudal nobility - it should be made clear that a Peerage CANNOT be bought on the open market (unless you know Lord Levy, of course!); only Scottish feudal titles can be bought in this way, and they confer no rights or privileges at all except to be known as 'Baron of X', and certainly not 'Lord X'.--Abc163 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


You total jerk. You don't know what my position was/is or what I am thinking. And, as usual on this site, my successful claim and the law pertaining to same has NOT been presented in anything that can remotely be called truthfull. Earl of Stirling

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/a/r/Talk%7EEarl_of_Stirling_3928.html"