User talk:Leigh Rayment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see your complaint has been noted on Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation. I have been involved in reformatting the articles, but did not post the information listed in the articles. I hope this makes things clear. Andrew Yong 23:43, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC).

[edit] Lauder baronetcy

Dear Mr.Rayment,

I refer to your website entry for the Lauder baronetcy which has been copied onto Wikipedia. You may not be aware of the full dispute and two court actions, plus the Parliamentary hearing in relation to this baronetcy.

Firstly, the Patent of 1688 was to John Lauder of Fountainhall (that’s what it actually says). Although he did purchase Idington from his father-in-law in the purchase sasine he conveyed it to his eldest son by his third marriage, George, retaining only his life-rent. In addition, George Ramsay continued to be designated “of Idingtoun” until his death. Sir John Lauder was never specifically designated “of Idingtoun”. His first designation (under which he matriculated Arms) was “of Newington” and thereafter “of Fountainhall.”

Also, according to GEC and the Mss in the Lauder Charter Chest the 1st Patent was “reduced” following the Parliamentary hearing in 1690 and not “cancelled” until 1692 by which time the new Patent to replace it had had the Royal Seal. Essentially it is the same baronetcy and I have never seen anywhere at all that Lord Fountainhall was ever designated as anything other than the 2nd Baronet. If it were an entirely new creation he would be the 1st baronet of that creation.

Until I saw this discrepancy on Wikipedia I had never imagined there could have been any question or doubt about this. Where did you get it from?

Could I refer you to "The Grange of St.Giles" by J.Stewart Smith (Edinburgh, 1898) where Lord Fountainhall's Holographed Legal Memorandum on both the Patent and the Libel case against his step-mother appear in the appendixes.

Kind regards, David Lauder 11:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)