Great! This is the kind of information we were hoping to stir up. The
reason that I had that question is that when I was looking up definitions
for those other titles, it seemed that Baron ranked lower than the others.
I was hoping that the answer would be that there were just the two titles in
the early days.
Laurel
-----Original Message-----
From: Plumpett@aol.com <Plumpett@aol.com>
To: sinclair@jump.net <sinclair@jump.net>
Date: Saturday, June 26, 1999 7:28 PM
Subject: NOBLE TITLES
>
>John Q. and Laurel ---
>
>I can help a little with your question #2 ; You wrote ::
>
>2. If the Sinclairs were so important to Malcolm and Margaret , why didn't
>William the Seemly get a better title than just "baron"? Question for FAQ
>???
>
>The answer may lie in a better understanding of the titles themselves ----
>focus on the thought you expressed of ""better title than just "baron " ""
.
>
>First , the older titles did not have the plurality common to latter times
!
>That is to say , the oldest , most relevant titles were Baron and Earl .
>Other titles were
>" invented " much later i.e. Duke , Marquess, Viscount , etc. !!!
>
>However , these later " inventions " were not indicative of more real power
>and that perhaps helps explain why there were often multiple titles held by
>an individual ; that is to say the lands , castles , powers and priviledges
>were incumbent in the " older " titles .
>
>A grant usually was of TITLE which was accompanied by LAND , POWERS ,
>PRIVILEDGES , RIGHTS , DUTIES , etc.
>
>And yes , before anyone is confused , I am purposely NOT addressing WARLORD
,
>KING , HIGH KING , MORMAEIR , etc . .
>
>Thus , you may find , that at the time period you are looking at for
William
>the Seemly, the title of Baron was no small thing -- even later , it was
the
>BARONS who forced the King to outline their " POWERS " in writing , in the
>MAGNA CARTA -- this document was not the rights of the lower or the middle
>class but rather those rights of the great landowners , the BARONS !!!
>
>For an example . look at Prince Henry -- Knight , Baron of Roslin , Jarl
>EARL ) of Orkney , etc. The lands , castles , etc, were separate items .
>
>Perhaps a better example was ROLLO -- he was " COUNT OF ROUEN " and that
was
>a sufficient title to indicate his great power and vast LANDHOLDINGS .
>
>MISC"L data --
>
>(1) " Until the reign of Edward the III , the Peerage consisted only of
>high
> ecclesiastics , earls and barons . The EARLS WERE BARONS .... and
>their
> names always appear on the rolls before those of the barons ."
>
>( 2) "Today there exists no Scottish dukedom , marquessate or viscounty
>.....created
> before the reign of James the VI . of Scotland . .....There are now
>only 87
> Scottish Peerages in all -- 63 were created after James accession ".
>
>As you can see , when he was created a " Baron " , William joined a very
>small and very exclusive group !!!
>
>Laurel , I provided most of the preceding from memory but I am sure of its
>accuracy -- I will be glad to look up sources to sustantiate everything or
>allow anyone to expand the detail , but I didn't want the letter to become
>too long or to obscure the relevant facts. .
>
>Regards to all
>
>JOE G.
>
>
>
>
>
>[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@jump.net.
>[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@jump.net.
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html