Talk:Anstruther Baronets
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Something is seriously wrong with this whole entry. As far I can see either there is another 1700 baronetcy or the present one listed as extinct is extant or [1] [2] is wrong. Further more the same links don't even seems particularly agree with the actual territorial designation or at least as we have phrased it. We also need to add irrespective of the above the 'of that Ilk' as that is part of the persons name. Can someone confirm the accuracy of the above and the article so we can correctAlci12 11:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Interesting definition of "seriously wrong"! The material on this page is sourced from Leigh Rayment's pages - of course that is no more guaranteed to be accurate than your references. The entry in Who Was Who for Ralph Anstruther (1921-2002) does suggest that he succeeded his cousin, Sir Windham Eric Francis Carmichael-Anstruther to the baronetcy of Anstruther of Anstruther in 1980. To that extend Leigh Rayment's material and the article appear to be inaccurate, but this can be easily fixed. As for "of that Ilk", that simply means "of that place" - holders of the Anstruther of Anstruther baronetcy could be described as Anstruther of that Ilk, so Sir Ralph could be "of Balcaskie", "of that Ilk" or both.--George Burgess 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd consider saying a title is extinct when it appears it isn't is 'seriously wrong' what would you call it, an oversight :) You can be 'of X' in Scotland without a baronetcy it's a traditonal form which we ought to try to get correct. In this case they have used the form I mentioned.Alci12 18:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
No, not an oversight - simply use of one source which turns out to be in conflict with others. Not the first time that sources are inconsistent, and certainly not the last. I am perfectly well aware that 'of X' and 'in X' are traditional forms in Scotland, but that does not mean that their use or non-use in a particular context is necessarily incorrect.--George Burgess 19:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. [3] says that John Anstruther "acquired Balcaskie in 1698," which matches with thepeerage.com, "8th Baronet Anstruther, of Wrae, co. Linlithgow [N.S., 1694] on 19 May 2002, and from 1698, 'of Balcaskie, co. Fife' and 'of Braemore, co. Caithness.'". So the original territorial designation of the 1694 baronetcy was "of Ware, Linlithgowshire", and the other two designations were added shortly thereafter. Note that elsewhere (http://www.thepeerage.com/p8136.htm#i81353), thepeerage.com describes one of these baronets as "of Balcaskie," suggesting that was their chief seat. From the description given, it appears that the 1798 baronetcy was issued to heir-male, and hence became extinct 1980, while the 1700 baronetcy was issued to "heirs-male whatsoever," and passed to the descendants of the 1st baronet of 1694 (uncle of the 1st baronet of 1700). I'm a little curious about how he proved his claim: Philip Anstruther, grandson of the 2nd Baronet (of 1700) had a number of children, and the online data don't make it clear whether his sons John Newdegate Anstruther (b. 1850, married 1874) and Henry Lewis Anstruther (b. 1856, moved to New Zealand and/or Australia) had male issue, which would be before Sir Ralph in line if they existed. Choess 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- You can certainly change the traditional forms of territorial use. The Macdonalds of the isles changed to Macdonald of Sleat in the Mid 20C due to LL ruling that only the PoW could use 'of the Isles' in Scotland. However can you change a desination of a baronetcy? There have been warrants for Peers to use slight variable forms of their titles in use but not in legal fact but is there something similar for baronets or have they just been left to use what they wishAlci12 14:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Burgess. Also, (1) the fact that one owns Balcaskie does not make that one's territorial designation. And (2) if the owner of Balcaskie is then made a Baronet, it does not follow that the territorial designation of the baronetcy would be "of Balcaskie". Nor does the fact that the Baronet is given the territorial designation "of Balcaskie" necessarily mean one owns property in that place (though he might). In Scotland, a territorial designation can only be changed by or with consent of Lord Lyon. - Kittybrewster 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is disputing 1 or 2. The confusion is over "8th Baronet Anstruther, of Wrae, co. Linlithgow [N.S., 1694]...and from 1698, 'of Balcaskie, co. Fife' and 'of Braemore, co. Caithness.'". On various sources thereafter the format name baronet of Balcaskie is used. If this is just a td change of name not title agreed with LL then that's fine but we want to be clear as far as possible that that is the case Alci12 09:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Burgess. Also, (1) the fact that one owns Balcaskie does not make that one's territorial designation. And (2) if the owner of Balcaskie is then made a Baronet, it does not follow that the territorial designation of the baronetcy would be "of Balcaskie". Nor does the fact that the Baronet is given the territorial designation "of Balcaskie" necessarily mean one owns property in that place (though he might). In Scotland, a territorial designation can only be changed by or with consent of Lord Lyon. - Kittybrewster 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- You can certainly change the traditional forms of territorial use. The Macdonalds of the isles changed to Macdonald of Sleat in the Mid 20C due to LL ruling that only the PoW could use 'of the Isles' in Scotland. However can you change a desination of a baronetcy? There have been warrants for Peers to use slight variable forms of their titles in use but not in legal fact but is there something similar for baronets or have they just been left to use what they wishAlci12 14:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
