Talk:Lord Lovat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Scottish clans This article is supported by the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Scottish clans and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Lord Lovat, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Numbering of the Lords Lovat

According to every source I find online, the current Lord Lovat is the 18th Lord, not the 16th -- the two in between the "forfeitfure" and "restoration" are counted. If no one else objects, and if I can find enough information, I'm going to remedy this. Canaen 09:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed them so they are numbered how they should legally be. Both Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page [1] and Whitaker's Almanack list him as 16th Lord, its seems its only the Lord himself who seems to call himself the 18th Lord! --Berks105 15:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, his Clan refers to him as the 18th Lord, public opinion refers to him as the 18th Lord, and his forefathers referred to themselves relative to his current status as the 18th Lord. Google it, [2], and you'll see the whole of the first page equates the "18th" lordship to the 25th Chief of the Clan, Simon Fraser, born 1977. [3]
Clan societies on the first google page:
[4] [5]
Others:[6] [7] [8]
Heraldry Scotland: [9],
By contrast, the first page listing the 16th Lord Lovat, besides these Wikipedia pages, is the website of the Lady Saltoun, the head of the lowland Frasers, who considers the 16th Lord Lovat to be Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat (1871-1933) who served in the 1st Life Guards. [10] The first page to list the current Lord Lovat as the 16th is a site entitled "absolute Astronomy". followed by these sites: [11]m, and reference.com, which is simply a copy of this page. "Muster Rolls", the last first page google result lists the 16th lord lovat as Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat (1871-1933). [12] It is the same Canadian Clan Fraser society listed above.
I believe that the tradition of a Clan which has been in Scotland for over a milenia now to be of far greater import than the law of the current regime. Hell, they were already Gaelicized 800 years ago. I'm going to await a response, and if I recieve none I'll change them back to their proper numbers.Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the sources you mention are not reliable, what he and his forefathers personally called themselves is totally immaterial. His family may not recognise it, but their peerage was forfeit from 1747 to 1854, and thus the present Lord is the 16th. And public opinion is very often wrong, so we can't go by that. Another source for the present Lord being 16th is here from Burke's Peerage, one of the most reliable sources regarding the peerage available. Wikipedia is surely a place for legality, not the tradition of clans, and legally the present Lord is 16th. --Berks105 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sorry about strongly disagreeing with you. It happens now and again. I'm sure that you mean the very best for this Wikipedia, but I do think that it's purpose is not to subjugate individuals to someone or another's law, but to provide a neutral source of information for people around the globe.
Wikipedia's role is neither to decide who is right or wrong, but to provide reliable information. We are building a reference encyclopedia, not passing laws. On another note, nothing about wikipedia is a sureity.
I don't agree that the Clan Fraser Association for California, which was given a personal charter by the late Lord Lovat (17th), is an unreliable source. Many of their members were personal friends of the Lord Lovat, and maintain contact with the current Lord Lovat. Their primary historian is well-respected, and they have an expansive library.
Other than that, I would say that the other Clan Societies, which refer to the current Lord Lovat as the 18th, in unison, make up a reliable source.
One compromise which comes to mind is numbering them not by their peerage, but by their Chiefship, which is not in dispute. The current Lord Lovat is universally known (in circles of those who care enough to know about the head of their clan, anyway) as the 25th MacShimidh, the 25th Chief of Clan Fraser. What do you say to this? Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still don't agree. You say Wikipedia's role is "neither to decide who is right or wrong, but to provide reliable information". The only way to do this is to use their legal numbering. The Clans are not a reliable source compared to English law, they are afterall a group of people who will be biased into ignoring the forfeit of the peerage. Burke's Peerage, Whitaker's Almanack and Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page are totally unbiased and reliable sources that say the current Lord is the 16th and Wikipedia must stick to be unbiased. --Berks105 09:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
First off, English law has nothing to do with Scotland. Scotland is governed by Scots law, and has been for a very long time now. That said:
Law is bias. Law is made by those in power. That's why we had laws supporting slavery in the past, Prohibition here in the states, and law was the primary tool used by the German Nazi Party in their early years in power. Law is not neutral. It makes value judgements, such as "murder is wrong," "stealing is wrong," etc. etc. Not everyone agrees to those two things, but they are law (albeit with more legalised wording) in most nation-states around the globe.
This is why Wikipedia does not take a stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the wider Arab-Israeli conflict . Though the law of Israel is on the Israeli side, the people of Palestine generall disagree with the Israeli state's "right" to subjugate Arabs.
I think that you and I may both wish to re-read through WP:NPOV, WP:POV, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. My simple compromise is that we could rename the articles by numbering their chiefship, and put a bit into the articles which doesn't take a stand either way, but gives information about both sides of forever ongoing debate regarding the numbering of the Lords Lovat. I'll give an Example:
Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat would become, Simon Fraser, 25th Chief of Clan Fraser, or Simon Fraser, 25th MacShimidh .
MacShimidh is the Gaelic patronym for the chief of Clan Fraser, and applies much more aptly than "chief" to all of the chieftains up to about Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser.
The point of this would be so that the title of the article did not take a side in this debate. Obviously, we have two conflicting viewpoints here, and this would be a way wherein we could deal with the debate in the article itself, and not have to move them around so much. It seems to be about the only compromise we're going to get. This debate has been long-waged, by those much more informed about law and clans than you or I. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I also feel that I must point out: the Lords Lovat did not simply style themsleves to be an extra two lords ahead, it was simply what they knew to be true. Scottish titles were oft revoked and bestowed again unto the revokee's heir, or even back unto the revokee themselves. With so many clan wars going on, and with the Monarch in such an unstable position (especially up until the 15th & 16th centuries), it's just something that happened. Everyone knew full-well that the title would be restored sooner or later, so they simply did not stop counting. After all, they were still chief of their Clan, and they still held their own lands. Effectively, they remained Lords, and were still respected as such, though they served time without titles or being welcome in Parliament for a time. Concrete law has little place in the Highlands, and this is no exception. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I still cannot agree on any point. Renaming the titles under the Clan idea would be confusing, as they are not known by this except to a very small number of people, they are always known by the higher title of Lord. And to be honest I don't believe there is a debate, he is the 16th Lord. There is no debate about the numbering on the most reliable sources (like Burke's etc), legally he is the 16th Lord. And legality does count on a matter like this. Whether we agree with the law or not, it is the law, and by siding with the law in a case like this I don't honestly believe we are taking sides. We would be taking sides if we said it was unfair to forfeit the peerage or if we said they deserved to have it taken away, but we are not we are simply saying legally he is the 16th Lord. --Berks105 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. The title (1st Lord Lovat) was created by lawful authority of the king and existed only so long as authority chose to allow it to continue. It is not scots law -v- english law. Both before the Act of Union and after it the state in the person of the monarch and parliament deprived peers of their titles by the respective laws of the time. Contrary to your comment many were never restored - there was no automaticity and what the clan thought about that is irrelevant. The clan's view then - or the plethora of associations now - has no legal weight whatsoever wrt the peerage title. Trying to suggest that the law and the clan association should be treated as equally valid views is pushing POV. All over wiki we have various pretenders to various titles and we label them as such pretenders and do not list them under fictitious monarchical titles as some of their more odd supporters would certainly wish. They are not the monarch and it would invite ridicule to pretend they are.
Consequently it is only the law that matters. The British *not* English Parliament established by the Act of Union, passed by both Scots/English parliaments, gave the new parliament all lawful authority it needed - and full sovereignty to create new law - to pass the acts of attainder which it so did in 1747. The act was later reversed again by the said parliament according to law in 1854. The terms of attainder are quiet clear in law and no one could have held or be numbered as though they held the title between attainder and reversal. Equally the attainted Lovat's lost their land - and it was only an act of parliament that returned it subject to a fine of £21,000 paid by Major-General Simon Fraser in 1774.
As to the Clan Chief, if you can provide evidence that the Lord Lyon subject to lawful authority recognised the Chief while the peerage was under attainder and today number according to that recognition then that would probably solve that issue. It would however be an additional note to this article as it would still be named Lord Lovat as the most common usage and need the senior title - the peerage - recorded above other titles in the same manner we do with all other holders of multiple titles. It would also not invalidate the listing of the correct lawful holder of the peerage which is the 16th. The present comment "the law took a brief hiatus" is misleading, the title was extinguished by law. Alci12 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The both of you exhibit disdain for Highland culture which is unfit for dealing with such articles. Please see WP:CIVIL. I take it offensively, and wish you both to stop, and attempt to use more indiscriminatory wording.
Purporting one's law to be neutral is simply not correct. Many, many people have varrying laws, and they do not all agree. I'm not sure what that bit about varying laws was about Alci, but the comment about distinction between laws of either nation was direct to a comment by Berks. The law of the state is not always the law of the land, and Scotland has made many very apt examples of this over the years. Most of the Jacobites wanted not to take British power, but to vanquish it from their lands, and to retain their Clan system. Presenting the dictated law of the monarch, or (especially at the point of the Jacobite rebellion, when the British Hanoverian monarch was largely incompetant abd believed unfit to rule) the British Prime Minister & ministerial cabinet, or parliament, over the voluntary rule of the people, is POV.
This all said, the only applicable policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which states:
"Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem."
Under Exceptions: "11. Use the most senior title received by a royal personage."
The most commonly way of referring to the Lords Lovat is as "Lord Lovat," or "the Lord Lovat." Following this, is "Simon Fraser, 18th Lord Lovat," with a few variations to fit the conversation. Referring to him as the 16th Lord Lovat is a bit of paperwork, legality, and a disputed one at that. In public press, where he is referred to the most, he is always referred to as the 18th Lord Lovat. As well, whenever an article about his sister, Honor Fraser, the model, refers to him, he is always referred to as the 18th Lord Lovat. In all aspects of public life, he is referred to as the 18th Lord Lovat.
Even the Lady Saltoun refers to him as the 18th Lord Lovat [13] This site on "Highland history and culture" refers to Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser (the late Lord Lovat) as the 17th, making the present Simon Fraser the 18th. [14] This article from The Independent (London) refers to SCJF as the 16th Lord Lovat as well. [15] Under "Past Forgetting," this news archive from the Dunoon Observer equates SCJF with the 17th Lord Lovat. [16] As does Electric Scotland. [17] If you search that page for "bid.—On Tuesday, 17th inst.," you'll find the following paragraph:
Ibid.—On Tuesday, 17th inst., Thomas Alexander Fraser of Lovat (grandfather of the present Lord Lovat) attained his majority. The occasion was celebrated with rejoicing throughout the Lovat estates. Bonfires and entertainments marked every district. "The view from Beaufort presented to the assembled company at the Castle one of the finest scenes that can be conceived. The summit of every hillock, as well as of every higher mountain, started into a blaze. and the whole line of country over the brown heather and along the valleys seemed covered with light and gladness." At Beaufort about one hundred gentlemen sat down to dinner, for which tables were spread in the Court. The health of Lovat was proposed by the Marquis of Huntly, and pledged with great enthusiasm. At Foyers, Mr Fraser, the proprietor, had a bullock killed and distributed with ale and whisky among his tenantry and neighbours. A splendid bonfire was kindled on Cairnderg, a mile above the house of Foyers.
This seems to indicate that in 1823, (the title of the entire section being "From the "Inverness Courier. 1823.", when the Lords Lovat were without any title, they had estates, wealth, and tenants.
The remaining pages for "Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat" are simply copies of our Wikipedia articles. Searching for 17th Lord Lovat, the University of Edinburgh here declares the 17th Lord Lovat to be Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser. [18] As does every clan society website I've ever seen, Fraser and otherwise. Notably, a film was made about the life of Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, and IMDB says that the film credits the man as the 17th Lord Lovat. [19] [20]
I believe that I've demonstrated fairly conclusively that "the most common form of the name[s] used in English" are those which conform to the present Lord Lovat being the 18th Lord Lovat.
As for Clan Chiefiship vs. Peerage: If you can provide proof that the title lended (by your own description) by a monarch 150 years ago (or 600 years ago, depending on whether you trust paperwork or practicality) is "senior" to a title which was bestowed by one's people for at least 800 years, then maybe this matter will be solved, for now, on this site. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A peerage is senior by laws of precedence - both Scottish and now British - and always has been both before and after the act of union. [Both goverened by a mixture of Royal Warrant and Acts of parliament] Just read through the latest order ('99). Your argument depends on ignoring any source with legal authority and relying on clan sites or press which have no competence to adjudicate on the succession to or correct use of a title which is entirely government by law. So please stop trying to claim wiki guidelines suggest we have to accept the mistaken or deliberate errors of usage by the clan or press - they don't.
Your reading of the naming conventions would produce articles on Diana, Princess of Wales calling her Princess Diana or Princess Di. They are certainly the most common usages but wiki does not and never has used them because they are patently incorrect. Naming conventions quite clearly state use the most common form if none of the rules below cover a specific problem. They give a whole string a exceptions including peerages: Members of the hereditary Peerage...Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title (of) place. So we are back to where we always were with the senior title being determined by law.
You legal argument simply doesn't stand up - there is one law of the land - that passed by the parliament of whichever state is in question. You can't simply opt out that if you don't like the law and declare some self assumed law of the people for your personal wiki edits. The law is the reality wiki has to deal with , you are pushing overt POV in trying to assert that your (I presume) clan has some right to create or determine succession to peerages by whatever they choose. Alci12 10:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As for law, anyway: I'm speaking in general terms here. Not every state has a parliament, and some states have differing laws within them. For a small example, the U.S. state of California has a law which has legalized the possesion of small amounts of marijuana. However, federal law considers any possesion to be illegal. Consequently, a California police officer will not arrest you for possessing a small amount of the stuff, but an F.B.I. or FDA officer will. We have many parliaments here. Law only reaches as far as it is enforced. It is not the be-all end-all of eternal existence. States rise and fall, as time goes on. As do laws within those states. Law is only official if you decide it is official. I'll not change your mind, however I would wish you to re-examine your concepts of states and law. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I find this argument rather baffling. Regardless of whether "law is bias", law, biased or not, is the only basis upon which Lord Lovat is "Lord Lovat" — a peerage is a legal concept, it's not something bestowed on him by common usage or by the æther. And peerage numbering is simply a legal convention for denoting which particular holder of a peerage is being referred to. If Lord Lovat is not the 18th person to hold the Lordship of Lovat (which he obviously isn't) then he rather self-evidently isn't 18th Lord Lovat. And that, I'm afraid, is that. You can quote people calling him that until you're blue in the face, but it won't make it so. Proteus (Talk) 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My views: The fact that the title had been deleted does mean that the current owner of the title is indeed, technically speaking, the 16th. As a Highlander, I think it's good to see reinforced the distinction between being a Lord and being a clan chief, as such discrepancies help to highlight the differences. I can understand Canæn's point of view, and am a vigorous supporter of Highland culture and an extremely keen student of Highland history. The fact that the Fraser clan consider the current Lord Lovat to be the 18th is an important piece of Highland tradition, and is extremely worthy of inclusion in the article. However, to refer to the current Lord as the 18th is factually incorrect. I would say that it would be appropriate to list him as the 16th, while explaining the history and the fact that clan Fraser effectively ignore the period when the title didn't exist, when it comes to counting their Lords. Lianachan 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is objecting to some remark(s) to the effect that 'for historical reasons - relating to jacobite rising etc - the clan style Lovat as though he were 18th Lord' as long as the succession list and the article here and on Clan Fraser make clear/use (in for example the picture of Lovat and Saltoun) the official/legal ordinal - ie the 16th Lord Lovat.
Thanks proteus for the rewrite that's exactly what I had in mind Alci12 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced of anything but the legal numbering of the Lords, however I do not wish to squander more time on this issue that coulds be better spent building the encyclopedia. I'll make certain that the numbering issue is noted; it might warrant it's own small article, or at least a section on this one. I must point out however, that once again, the styling of the Lords Lovat by their higher numbers is not simply a clan view, or a bit of pride for the lords. I hope that at least, you all can see that much. I do not consent, but I concede. Arguments which get this long are not worth continuing, especially on things this trivial. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finding People

The more online articles I read, the more I find the Lords Lovat referred to by their higher numberings. It occurs that many (including myself), when searching for say, Simon CJ Fraser, will enter "Simon Fraser, 17th Lord Lovat" if they're trying to look up someone they've read about. Now, upon reading this page [21], and realizing that there are potentially other pages out there who name the preceding Lords Lovat, I wonder how we might go about not leading people to the wrong pages? Rather, leading people to the pages which they do want to find? Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see that this is a problem. The Lord Lovat page and each indivuial page makes it clear about the differing numbering. In additon if you search for Simon Fraser, 18th Lord Lovat you are redirected to the right page. This also is the case with the other Lords. I fail to see how there is a problem. --Berks105 10:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I can make myself more clear. No, the same is not done with the other lords. Because, if you enter "Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat" you get the current Lord Lovat, even though you may be searching for his Great-Grandfather. This is the main problem; our numbering currently differs from that of the general public. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Most people will just put in Lord lovat, and will find this article with a helpful explanation of the numbering that we have now, included distinguishing the legal numbering and explaining the other ordinal use. To take famous examples in another articles do you really think people looking for Lord Lucan (the man who may have murdered his nanny) search under '7th Earl of Lucan' or 'Lord Lucan' or even 'Lucan'; that those looking for the Earl of Cardigan who led the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimea search for 7th Earl of Cardigan or Lord Cardigan or Cardigan. The main title article should and does make things clear - which is in large measure its purpose. The link you mention in any case has 'While legally being 16th Lord Lovat, he is commonly referred to as the 18th Lord.' I think the room for confusion is minimal here.
You links as I explained before are problematic for several reasons. It really is child's play to find errors in the papers as Princess Di to Baroness Helena Kennedy has already been shown. From today's Times; New Years Honours list we have "and Charles Sir Wheeler, the doyen of foreign correspondents." Obviously it's Sir Charles Wheeler. Newspapers are not official sources to determine anything but perhaps some commonality of use. However many things are commonly believed that wiki doesn't state in articles because they are false. The MOS has always been clear most common use is the default only after all the exceptions of which this article is one.
Wiki doesn't fill articles with what the public believes true if it isn't true and is easily shown to be the case. We're trying to be an encyclopaedia here. Taking your links that you've obviously spent some time locating. Many are simply circular. Cut and search for various strings from your links and you find word for word copying of one site by another. Just as an example "The first generation on record included Simon Fraser in Keith, Gilbert Fraser, and Bernard Fraser in East Lothian". If you keep following it you end up with site X copied by site y and then newspaper z merely reporting the same. Alci12 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You say,
"Newspapers are not official sources to determine anything but perhaps some commonality of use."
I know. I thought I made it clear. Please see this edit, by User:Proteus. This is what I'm trying to change. Not any statement of fact. I'm simply trying to change the wording, which I see as derogatory, offensive, and misleading. The wording which Berks has put forth, and Proteus has reverted to, portrays the alternate numbering as simply an opinion of a very small group. When, in all my experience, outside of clan and in, the higher numbering have been used. I'm not trying to argue on what is right or wrong, I'm simply trying to get a point across, that the higher numberings are simply used more commonly in public life. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the situation is this, dozens of Scottish titles have been attainted - and many still are - and when restored continued from the previous numbering as you would expect. Lovat is an exception in this respect and the incorrect numbering has been promoted by the clan since the attainder. As I tried to illustrate so many of the links that appear on the face of it to agree and merely copies of the clansite or clan information. I don't think Proteus or Berks are suggesting that no one outside the clan uses that numbering but that the principle and overarching reason that the confusion exists is because of the clan. Were the clan to revert to the correct numbering then all those sites that copy their material and newspaper interviews (using information provided by the same) would very quickly fall into the expected line. I understand where you are coming from but I think the edit broadly true. However if you wanted to edit it to 'used mainly by Clan Fraser' or promoted strongly by or some qualified language to perhaps imply that the main but not only source is the clan I can't say I would object to that. Alci12 10:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The "general public" doesn't give two hoots about peerage numbering, and will merely be searching (if at all) for "some chap called Lord Lovat". The only systems used are (a) that of Clan Fraser and its associates (and those taking their information from the same) and (b) that of the law and of peerage reference works. One is correct, the other is not. Saying anything else is misleading and wrong, and I will simply revert any further attempts to imply that they are equally valid. Proteus (Talk) 16:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your actions and words to be quite offensive. You give no references, sources, or anything of verifiablility, you have no respect for hundreds of years of tradition, you're absurdly compelled by law and states, and you make hostile threats, completely stonewalling progress on this article. I would ask you to please, stop, take many deep breaths, perhaps go away for a short bit, and come back to the article if you wish to continue making progress, and developing an encyclopedic article here. Taking breaks like these are a good way to relieve targeted stress, and are suggested by near everyone over at the Kindness Campaign, and other groups working for a positive editing environment.
As for the general public: Scottish and English folks usually at least know that a Lordship is usually a hereditary title, and there are normally multiple holders of the title. Chances are, that if they've associated any number with the current Lord Lovat (and considering he's only held that title for 11 years or so now, and considering the fame of his grandfather), it's probably 18th, not 16th. I've provided multiple occurences of this, in-and-outside of sites devoted to titles and peerage, and you've simply provided two sites, with long lists of text and multiple peerages, which no one but those exceptionally interested will ever bother to read through.
To claim that there are only two systems in use, and they are the ones you've named, especially in such a finalizing manner, is blatantly pushing your point of view. I've just brought up the matter of feudal titles (the title of Lord Lovat or Lord Fraser of Lovat (being one in the same, as all feudal titles varied greatly as such), which could potentially be in use. It's really not all so clear, you see. I would much prefer to discuss things out here, on the talk page. If you do continue to revert changes to the article, as you claim you will, then I will be forced to report you for the WP:3RR, punishing users for reverting a single article 3 times in a short period of time. I don't like these, and I'm probably bringing too much up too soon, but your attitude has put me into a state which makes me want to defend the encyclopedia as much as I can. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing up: Who numbers how

The higher numberings of the Lords Lovat are not simply used by the Clan Fraser. They are the accepted, commonly-used numberings. I'm not going to try to rename the articles as such, but User:Berks105 has consistently entered a line into the numbering explanations on many pages, to the effect that only the Clan Fraser numbers them this way. That is simply not true. As websites are the only sources which we can all view, I give the following websites, none of which are authored by members of the Clan Fraser, none of which are related to the Clan Fraser, which all refer to the Lords Lovat by their higher numberings.

The Independent (London): [25]
the Dunoon Observer: [26]

There are countless others. The Lords hare simply referred to by their higher numberings. Please, please stop stating that these numberings are simply used by the clan. If you continue, I will have to assume that either you're acting in bad faith, or you simply don't have the perspective to understand. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baronage Press: more numbering

This page might help explain the numbering differences. I think we've been mistaken as to exactly why the numberings differ. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 00:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feudal title

Both of these pages [34] [35] point to the Lordship of Lovat being a feudal title (sometimes referred to as Lord Fraser of Lovat), existing before the Lordship of Parliament (rather, the first mentions it, and the second explains their relevance). This coincides with my own records, and that of the clan. It seems that this bit would be much better suited on this page, than, say, on a new article called "Lord Lovat (feudal title). There simply won't be enough information for an article like that. I'll start gathering a bit more info from books in my collection, and other sites, and add it in soon. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, noting the comments about correct numbering on those links, it is quite possible that there are multiple feudal titles; many peers have plenty but as minor to their primary dignity they are often almost forgotten. The most useful thing here would be something from the Lord Lyon or another official source as to both the Lovat and Kinnell feudal status. Feudal titles are rendered in a different form so really don't overlap with the peerage titles in a problematic way. Including some mention of any provable feudal titles doesn't seem an issue, we do the same thing on the title page (but not each holders page) for barons who have say a baronetcy. I don't see why feudal titles can't be mentioned as it seem fair. Alci12 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be much more knowledgable on the matter of Scottish and UK-related titles and whatnot than I am; would you mind elaborating on how feudal titles are rendered differently? Do you mean in how they come about, or how they are referred-to/written, or? I'd be much obliged. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Scottish feudal titles are never "Lord" anything. (And they're generally not notable enough to have articles anyway.) Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Barons?

Hi folks, I'm about to start what I fear is going to turn into an ugly discussion, and would like to keep it from heading that way. This is an honest attempt at figuring things out, and I would like to avoid stepping on wikitoes, so to speak. Just please keep civility in mind, and focus on the issue, folks.

Hugh Fraser (d. 1440) was a Scottish Baron, the title he used being "1st Lord Fraser de Lovat". By the time of the 4th Lord, Thomas Fraser, the title had become "4th Lord Fraser". No reasoning for this is readily available, but Thomas's father, Hugh Fraser, 1st Lord Lovat had gained a new title, in the Peerage of Scotland (in 1458); That of Lord Lovat.

Now, in 1747, the 13th Baron (Lord Fraser), and 11th Peer (Lord Lovat) (both titles being referred to as "Lord"), Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat, was executed. His titles became forfeit, as he had been convicted of treason, as a result of his partaking in the Jacobite Risings. This is the last time the two titles had distinct numberings from one another. After both of his sons had died, Thomas Alexander Fraser did some nonsense or other, and was created "Baron Lovat" in 1837, as he traced his lineage from Alexander Fraser, 4th Lord Lovat, referred to as "14th Baron Lovat." J.R. Harper in his book "The Fraser Highlanders" says that he was created the 14th Baron. In 1854, a private act of parliament "relieved" Thomas Alexander Fraser, already a Baron, from the effects of Simon Fraser's attainment. Most sources also say that he was thus/also created either the 12th or 14th Lord Lovat. I haven't been able to get ahold of the leglislation itself, so who know what it may have said precisely.

Now, it looks like a few things need to be figured out.

  • The status of the orignal Scottish Baron title (dating from the 6th Chief of the Clan Fraser, Hugh Fraser)
  • What is the interplay between Lord Lovat (title from 1498) and Baron? Is/Was it common to refer to Barons as Lords/Lords as Barons? What is the status of a "Lord" is he has no more specific title behind it?
  • When Thomas was created a Baron, was it a new creation, or simply the coninuation of the old title? The last Baron before him was the 13th Baron Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat. See the bolded note about numberings above. If the 1837 title were simply a continuation, that would make 14th a perfectly suitable number. However, it is Baron Lovat, not Baron Fraser, so that would hint at the previous title of "Lord Lovat" somehow interplaying with the title of Baron, at least in usage.
  • A Distinctive hierarchy of the titles we know of, it possible.

So... yup. I don't have all the resources available to me that I think are needed for this, and I've not enough knowledge on the subject to simply do it as I see fit. So, I hope that others join in here. If not, very well, but this article is not comprehensive as it stands. 66.81.182.59 07:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's sunday so this will be quick. The 1837 creation was a barony in the peerage of the UK, that has nothing whatsoever to do with any previous titles. There is no means to create someone 14th anything, any creation is a new creation (and in this instance) in a different peerage. Only parliament can undo the attainder and only parliament could alter any aspect of the peerage. No one under attainder can succeed nor does the reversal reterospectively re-enoble those between the attainder and reversal.
I don't follow your '1498' the Lordship is 1458 and is just that not a barony - they are very different things in Scotland/England/UK. The fact he asked or was offered that the UK barony to be created as Lovat is probably just historical preference and has no more legal consequence than if he had been created Baron Fraser. The incorrectly used numbering is not based on some legal appreciation that 1837 was a recreation but on the peverse pretence that the jacobite line was still 'ruling' therefore the hanovarian line had no authority to remove the title post '45. This is fiction but the numbering has stuck in some quarters and so this resurfaces from time to time.
As to the feudal title, as and when someone can find something from the Lord Lyon confirming the present Lovat as holding the feudal barony I'd be delighted to discuss it - though feudal titles are rarely notable in themselves and v few peers who have them have it mentioned in articles. Alci12 10:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
So I understood about half of that. Everything I've read says that the 1837 Barony was in the Peerage of Scotland, and the later 1854 reversal of the attainder created a new Lord Lovat in the UK. Did the 1854 act create a new lordship along with reversing (or "relieving") the attainder? Which title does "16th Lord Lovat" refer to when used by Burke's? Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the results of the Act of Union in 1707 was that no new Scottish or English titles could be created. The existing peerages of both England and Scotland continued but no new peerages could be added. Only peerages of Ireland or Great Britain (until 1800) thereafter Ireland or the United Kingdom could be created. Attainder extinguishes a title and reversal restores the exact same title - so the only consequence of 1854 was the restoration of the of 1458 lordship. The 16th refers to the same. Alci12 10:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah. That makes much more sense. You're a truly helpful person, Alci. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Another question: What exactly is/was the status of a Feudal Barony? Are you referring to the title that started with Hugh Fraser, who died in 1440? Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Feudal Scottish titles rank below Lordships in Scotland and are property; feudal titles can therefore be sold something that is not possible for peerages and because of this proving transmission or ownership can be difficult. So any feudal titles really need to be established by Lyon. However as I say Lovat is already notable because he is a clan chief, holds an ancient peerage in scotland and a peerage of the UK. Alci12 10:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't happen to read Latin, do you? According to Simon "the Fox" (11th Lord Lovat)'s second Son, Archibald Campbell Fraser, King Alexander III gratned the right of the "Lordship of Loveth, vulgo Morich," in the Aird in 1253. The text of it is available here, at Wikisource, though it'll probably be moved over to the Latin WS pretty soon. Would you refer to that as a Feudal barony, or feudal lordship, or... something else entirely? Please stop me if I start asking too much of you; I'm just a very curious sort of person, is all. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I do rustily, though that's doesn't necessarily help, charters are a somewhat specialist field in needing to know what they mean - in any time period - by a word rather than a strict translation. I can see broadly what's being done though it's really only part of the jigsaw. I should probably add a few qualifications. While the vast majority of feudal titles are baronies there are some Lordships and even a handful of earldoms. However these are still not peerages. All the above could be altered by grant and regrant (novodamus) so any one charter tells you only that at some point 'x' was created or granted; it is a moving target. [What's the source for that btw it gives no link or reference. It seems on the face of it badly transcribed eg 'Alexander Dei Gratia Rec Scotorum orbus probis hominibus terrae suæ clerices et laices'. 'Alexander, by the grace of god , King of Scots' is intended but then it should read 'gratia rex' then it continues presumable about the trusty men of the land clerical and lay.] What may have happened is that the former feudal title was erected into the Lordship in 1458 but obviously that's just an asumption based on other cases. Alci12 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Your sources are wrong. The 1837 creation was a Barony in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It has been impossible to create Scottish peerages since 1707. There are two peerages involved: the Scottish Lordship of Parliament, created in 1458, attainted in 1747 and restored in 1854 (the current Lord Lovat being the 16th holder) and the UK Barony, created in 1837 (the current Lord Lovat being the 5th holder). Feudal Baronies are minor titles of very little importance: they entitle the holder to call himself "John Smith of Somewhere" rather than "John Smith", but not much else, and Wikipedia generally ignores them because they're too minor to worry about. Proteus (Talk) 09:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well 'John Smith, baron of loch somewhere' although some do push their luck by pretending to be 'peers' Alci12 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not a form of address, though. They could, I suppose, be described as "John Smith, Baron of Edinburgh" in the same sense that Tony Blair could be described as "Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", but it's not their correct style. Proteus (Talk) 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Simon Fraser (1773--1852)

Has anyone ever heard of Captain Simon Fraser (1773--1852)? He's a Scottish composer and I'd like to create a new article about him and link to it from the Scottish Baroque music page. Could someone tell me how to make the article consistent with existing articles on the Frasers? Willow1729 04:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Resources for the above