Sir Iain Moncreiffe, Albany Herald, was once married to the Countess
(in her own right) of Erroll. Their first son (now nth Earl) dropped
the name and arms of Moncreiffe for those of Hay alone (he could have
been Hay-Moncreiffe and quartered).
Sir Iain died in 1985. I want to know: did the Moncreiffe baronetcy
go to the Earl, or to his brother?
--
disclaimer: the above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
put Canter & Siegel out of business: open the borders
: Sir Iain Moncreiffe, Albany Herald, was once married to the Countess
: (in her own right) of Erroll. Their first son (now nth Earl) dropped
: the name and arms of Moncreiffe for those of Hay alone (he could have
: been Hay-Moncreiffe and quartered).
: Sir Iain died in 1985. I want to know: did the Moncreiffe baronetcy
: go to the Earl, or to his brother?
I received the following reply. Since it wasn't posted, I'll assume
the sender prefers anonymity.
: Debretts lists a Moncreiffe of that Ilk Baronetcy, but identifies
: your Sir Iain as the holder. It does say that he died in 1985 and
: was succeeded by his son the 24th Earl of Erroll but it does not
: identify the Earl as a Baronet.
:
: Checking the Erroll Peerage entry one finds Merlin Sereld Victor Gilbert
: *Hay* listed as the 24th Earl and 12th *holder* of the Baronetcy whereas
: other Peers are listed as Peer and Baronet rather than holders.
:
: Also interestingly, the brother of the Earl, the Hon Peregrine David
: Euan Malcolm Moncreiffe of Moncreiffe is listed as the feudal Baron of
: Easter Moncreiffe and fiar of the feudal Barony of Moncreiffe. Where
: does he derive these titles from and why are the especially designated
: as "feudal"? Also why should his brother simply be the holder of the
: baronetcy and not the Baronet?
A "feudal barony" in Scotland is not a peerage but an estate
(in England I guess he'd be called a "lord of the manor").
Lord Erroll did inherit the baronetcy from Sir Iain. Both Sir Iain
and Lady Erroll were chiefs of their respectvie clans. Although it is
not strictly followed, a Scottish clan chief should use the clan name
alone as surname and bear plain arms. Since peerages and baronetcies
go to the eldest son, Lord Erroll got them all. He also got the plain
Hay arms and became chief of the Hays. His brother, Hon. Peregrine
Moncreiffe, has the Moncreiffe arms and chiefship.
In Lord Erroll's matriculation of arms, an "alternate" coat of arms is
described showing what his arms could be if he didn't use the plain
Hay arms. I'll type in the blazon if anyone's interested.
-Jeff
--
Jeff Remillard
j...@wpi.edu
j...@tfn.com
I have my copy of Debrett 1995 in front of me,and Lord Erroll is shown
as bearing the Hay arms only.
His brother is called "feudal Baron of Easter Moncreiffe and fiar of the
feudal Barony of Moncreiffe",but there is no mention of his being recognized
in Lyon Court or elsewhere as clan chief.I haven't seen him on the chief
list in Whitaker.
: Lord Erroll did inherit the baronetcy from Sir Iain. Both Sir Iain
: and Lady Erroll were chiefs of their respectvie clans. Although it is
: not strictly followed, a Scottish clan chief should use the clan name
: alone as surname and bear plain arms. Since peerages and baronetcies
: go to the eldest son, Lord Erroll got them all. He also got the plain
: Hay arms and became chief of the Hays. His brother, Hon. Peregrine
: Moncreiffe, has the Moncreiffe arms and chiefship.
To respond further...I note on Debrett's p. B610 that Katharine Elisabeth
Moncreiffe of Moncreiffe(a daughter of the ninth baronet,I assume a sister
of the 10th whose death in a fire passed the title to Sir Iain) is listed as
"24th Feudal Baroness of Moncreiffe",seat Moncreiffe,Perthshire.She was
born 1920;I assume the Hon. Peregrine(b. 1951) is not going to apply to be
recognized in Lyon Court as Chief of the Clan until after she dies.
Note that Sir Iain's line,baronets from 1685,had the chiefship conveyed to
them in the 1660s by another line,baronets from 1626,who are now represented
by the 5th Lord Moncreiff.Their seat is Tullibole Castle in Kinross-shire.
"His Loardship also has the following grand coat, surmounted of an
Earl's coronet, videlicet:- Grand Quarterly 1st grand quarter;
Argent a lion rampant Gules, armed and langued Azure, a chief
Ermine (for the Baronial house of Moncreiffe of that Ilk): 2nd
grand quarter; Quarterly, 1st, Azure, a fess chequy Argnet and
Gules (for Boyd, Earl of Kilmarnock); 2nd, Argent, three
gillflowers (represented as cinquefoils) Gules within a double
tressure flory counterflory Vert (for Livingston, Earl of
Linlithgow); 3rd, Sable, a bend between six billets Or (for
Callendar, Thane of Callendar); 4th, Argent, three inescutcheons
Gules (for Hay, Earl of Erroll): 3rd grand quarter; Quarterly;
1st and 4th, Gules, three lions passant guardant Or (England);
2nd, Or, a lion rampant Gules, armed and langued Azure, within a
double tressure flory counterflory of the second (Scotland); 3rd,
Azure, a harp Or, stringed Argent (Ireland); en surtout an
inescutcheon tierced per pale and per chevron; 1st, Gules, two
lions passant guardant Or (Brunswick); 2nd, Or, semee of hearts
Gules, a lion rampant Azure (Luneburg); 3rd, Gules, a horse
courant Argent (Hanover); being the Royal Arms of King William IV
(without the Inescutcheon of the Crown of Charlemagne and without
the Crown of Hanover) with the distinction over all of a baton
sinister Azure charged with an anchor between two thistles
stalked and leaved Or (for Elizabeth FitzClarence, Countess of
Erroll): 4th grand quarter; Argent, a heart Gules, and on a chief
Azure three mullets of the field (for Douglas, Earl of Douglas):
AND Over All the Quarters: an Inescutcheon en surtout, Argent,
three inescutcheons Gules, as Chief of the Name and Arms of Hay."
>To respond further...I note on Debrett's p. B610 that Katharine Elisabeth
>Moncreiffe of Moncreiffe(a daughter of the ninth baronet,I assume a sister
>of the 10th whose death in a fire passed the title to Sir Iain) is listed as
>"24th Feudal Baroness of Moncreiffe",seat Moncreiffe,Perthshire.She was
>born 1920;I assume the Hon. Peregrine(b. 1951) is not going to apply to be
>recognized in Lyon Court as Chief of the Clan until after she dies.
>
The 1980 Debrett's (the only one I can get my hands on) has a listing
of recognized clan chiefs. For Moncreiffe, it lists Sir Iain as chief
and Elisabeth Moncreiffe, a cousin, as heir. For Hay, Lord Erroll is
chief and Hon. Peregrine Moncreiffe is heir. What am I mising here?
Why did the Moncreiffe chiefship go to a cousin rather than a son?
This seems even more confusing than the Earl of Selkirk.
The 1995 Debrett(the one I now own;I have seen 1980,1985,and 1990 editions
each once in a library a thousand miles or more away from home) has no clan
chief list.All my editions of WHITAKER'S ALMANACK do,but they do not list
the heirs to chiefs(the odd chief who makes it into WHO'S WHO usually has
an heir listed).WHITAKERs since Sir Iain's death have listed the Moncreiffe
chiefship as vacant.
Anyway...Elisabeth Moncreiffe was the actual next of kin to the 10th baronet,
but being female she could not succeed her brother in his baronetcy,which
went to his cousin Sir Iain.Lord Erroll was the heir to the baronetcy,but
being a Hay rather than an Moncreiffe could not take the chiefship.His
brother will presumably claim it when Elisabeth dies.Now that Lord Erroll
has two sons and two daughters,there seems no risk of combination again.
Note that when Lord Erroll's grandfather was killed(as in the film WHITE
MISCHIEF),his daughter(later married to Sir Iain) inherited the Hay
chiefship and Earldom,while his brother(their father had been Earl for
only a year,FWIW) inherited the Barony of Kilmarnock and became Chief of
Clan Boyd,taking that name.
Interesting...
of three cases I can name in this position,then,Lord Erroll appears in
Debrett with the plain-name arms and description;the Duke of Buccleuch
with the plain-name arms illustrated,but the grand-quartered arms with
inescutcheon described;and the Duke of Fife(chief of the Carnegies since
his father died) with the grand-quartered,inescutcheoned coat both
illustrated and described.Perhaps he can bear the full coat and still
be chief because he is so close to the Royals,or because his main title
is a UK rather than Scottish peerage?