Master of Tweeddale
Turenne
Ogilvy, Bruce, Glamis, Selkirk etc. How is it that the current
Marquess of Tweeddale's *heir presumptive* Lord Alisdair Hay is known
as the Master of Tweeddale?
Richard L
bx...@yahoo.com
The heir to His Lordship is his brother. I've seen the brother
titled as Hon. Angus John, Master of Elphinstone.
I always wondered about that!
Brooke
Turenne
wishes, thought have no evidence of this. I can understand why
Tweedale might pass the title to his brother, since he, (Tweedale) is
over 60. Elphinstone however is only in his thirties.
Richard
Turenne
RL
marquess
to be known as master, as Lord is far superior, but if one is just an
honourable etc, then the embellishment of Master might add some
gravitas and distinction, though I have found that the appellation of
master sits better with viscounts and Scots lords.
Kiwiboy
The Scottish title of master is a courtesy title, borne by the heirs
presumptive and heirs apparent of the Scottish peerage, as specified
below:
There are three kinds of master, all of which are connected with the
Peerage of Scotland (see page above):
(1) The heir apparent (usually the eldest son) of:
(a) A duke, marquess, earl or a countess in her own right: bears the
title of master, which is a legal dignity in its own right. Generally
the master's designation is the same as the peerage, eg the son of the
Earl of Lauderdale is the Master of Lauderdale. The eldest sons of
dukes, marquesses and earls also have courtesy peerage titles (the son
of the Earl of Lauderdale is Viscount Maitland as well as Master of
Lauderdale), and they are generally known socially by their peerage
titles. In all legal documents, however, commissions or proceedings
in court the heir apparent is referred to by his substantive title of
master, eg the son and heir of the Earl of Lauderdale is referred to
as John Master of Lauderdale, commonly called Viscount Maitland.
(b) A viscount, or lord or lady of parliament: the title of master is
borne both legally and socially.
(2) The heir presumptive of a peer. For example, Lord Lovat's
brother is his heir presumptive, and he bears the title of Master of
Lovat, but only for as long as Lord Lovat is without a son. If the
heir presumptive is not a close relation of the peer, it is necessary
for the Lord Lyon to approve his use of the title.
(3) The son and heir of an heir apparent, who bears a peerage by
courtesy. In practice this usage is limited to an earl's grandson,
since the grandson of a duke or marquess is generally known by a
courtesy title. The master's designation is usually the same as his
father's, thus the son and heir (if any) of Viscount Maitland is the
Master of Maitland. If the designation does not follow the usual
practice it is by family arrangement and by decision of the Lord Lyon.
Richard R
sometime Lord Lyon King of Arms now Orkney Herald Extraordinary, from
his online article 'Peers and Heirs':
'The Master' a title which may jump about, and which he may have to
give up to the ''Heir Apparent'' when no longer the heir to the
peerage. In one case, in relation to the Lordship of Glamis, for two
periods Sir Thomas Lyon, brother of the 8th Lord Glamis, was
designated 'Master of Glamis'. He first gave up the title on the birth
of his nephew, later 9th Lord Glamis in 1575, but on the death of his
elder brother, the 8th Lord of Glamis, in 1578 he was again 'Master of
Glamis' and heir presumptive until his nephew produced his grand-
nephew in 1606, (later 10th Lord Glamis), when he again ceased to be
'Master of Glamis' and heir presumptive. If the heir apparent is
female she may be described as The Mistress of X'. Understandably
perhaps there is sometimes a certain reluctance or reticence about
adopting this style!
http://www.scotsgenealogy.com/online/peers_and_heirs.htm
> > Richard L- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Richard R
"British Titles" pp103-108:
THE SCOTTISH STYLE OF "MASTER"
A peculiarity of the Scottish peerage is the use of the style "Master
of" applied to the ha or hp to a peerage. The origin of the style is
"wropt in mystery".... Whatever its origin, the style Master is of
considerable antiquity. There is plenty of evidence of its customary
use as a style for the heirs of Scots peers in the earliest years of
the fifteenth century, and the presumption is that it dates back much
earlier than that.
There is a certain amount of misapprehension about the style south
of the Border. In some reference books it is described as a courtesy
style and placed in the same category as the purely courtesy titles
enjoyed by the eldest sons and grandsons of English and British peers.
THAT IS INCORRECT. It CAN be a courtesy style in the case of
grandsons, but IN THE CASE OF AN ELDEST SON IT IS A SUBSTANTIVE
DIGNITY IN ITSELF conferred directly in the patent of peerage as one
to be borne by the eldest son. There is ample evidence indeed that the
dignity is one which in the past was regarded as part, as it were, of
the peerage itself. For a time bearers of the style were entitled to
sit in [Scottish] Parliament, though merely to hear and not to speak
or vote; records of such sittings are to be found in the Roll of the
Parliament of Scotland. [A right which persisted until] the union of
the two Kingdoms in 1707.
Another fallacy, also sponsored by some reference books, is that the
style is borne only by the eldest son of Scots viscounts or barons.
The evidence is clear that it applies to sons of all peers of
Scotland, whatever their rank.
It has fallen into desuetude in the case of dukedoms and
marquessates because, since about the beginning of the 17th century,
the eldest son and his eldest son have borne courtesy titles in the
ordinary “peerage” form. But it is still indisputably the legal right
of the eldest son of any Scots peer…. So far as the eldest sons of
earls are concerned the style has also been abandoned, for even if
there were a case where no secondary title were available…, one would
be “invented”. There is at least one case where the heir is known by
both styles. That was the 7th Earl of Glencairn – a title now extinct
– who during his heir apparency was known as Lord Kilmaurs and Master
of Glencairn – a quaint example of the use of both courtesy and de
jure.
But the STYLE [(ie not the DIGNITY) is still in use by the sons of
earls’ heirs apparent]. In such cases…, however, the style is not a
dignity but purely a courtesy style. As a dignity it is vested in the
ha himself.
The legal style of the eldest son of every viscount and baron on the
roll of Scots peers is thus “Master of”, with the name of his father’s
peerage attached [Except in the Barony of Balfour of Burleigh, where
it is Master of Burleigh and the Barony of Belhaven and Stenton, where
it is Master of Stenton].
[The author then recalls disputing with the (UK) Lord Strathspey his
use of the style ‘Master of Grant’ for his ha, as the peer believed he
was the 31st Chief of the Clan Grant. The chiefship was actually
vested in the then Countess of Seafield’s uncle, a baronet, whose son
& ha could not use the title as such use was confined to the Scots
peerage. Heywood sought a ruling from Lyon Court who ruled “The title
[Master of] is borne only by Scottish peers’ sons, and I know of no
Highland chieftain whose son is entitled to be so designated”.]
….there is plenty of evidence that in the past the style was also
borne, with equal legality, by heirs presumptive…. Sir Thomas Innes of
Learney [sometime Lord Lyon] who made some research into the subject…
came to the conclusion that the style could be assumed by any heir
presumptive to a Scots peerage,… and that such assumptions would
legally be sound according to the principles of Scots peerage law. But
it is clear the dignity would have to be surrendered in the event of
any heir apparent coming on the scene, which is probably why the
practice appears to have fallen into desuetude. Modern useage has
confined the style to heirs apparent, and it is very many years since
an heir presumptive assumed it, except in the courtesy styles of
grandsons [this was written in 1953].
Occasionally in the past one came across reference to “the Mistress
of” this or that applied to the eldest daughter of a peer in the
absence of a son, but Sir Frances Grant [then Lord Lyon] informs me
that there was never any warrant for the adoption of this style by an
heiress presumptive.
[END OF EXTRACT]
On Mar 27, 10:36 am, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a succint description by Sir Malcolm Innes of Edingight,
> sometime Lord Lyon King of Arms now Orkney Herald Extraordinary, from
> his online article 'Peers and Heirs':
>
> 'The Master' a title which may jump about, and which he may have to
> give up to the ''Heir Apparent'' when no longer the heir to the
> peerage. In one case, in relation to the Lordship of Glamis, for two
> periods Sir Thomas Lyon, brother of the 8th Lord Glamis, was
> designated 'Master of Glamis'. He first gave up the title on the birth
> of his nephew, later 9th Lord Glamis in 1575, but on the death of his
> elder brother, the 8th Lord of Glamis, in 1578 he was again 'Master of
> Glamis' and heir presumptive until his nephew produced his grand-
> nephew in 1606, (later 10th Lord Glamis), when he again ceased to be
> 'Master of Glamis' and heir presumptive. If the heir apparent is
> female she may be described as The Mistress of X'. Understandably
> perhaps there is sometimes a certain reluctance or reticence about
> adopting this style!http://www.scotsgenealogy.com/online/peers_and_heirs.htm
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Turenne
seems to me that an heir presumptive would do well not to have his
notepaper printed unless a) the heir apparent is pretty old or b) is
gay!
Richard
Turenne
>a) the heir apparent is pretty old or b)...........
Sorry; I mean title holder...
RL
bx...@yahoo.com
of this whole situation.
Honestly, between the entire matter with this terminology that we
just went through and the fact that some of the Scottish titles (but
not all) can be inherited by females, it's enough to give us Peerage
fans a monumental headache at times.
Brooke
Turenne
On 27 Mar, 17:57, "b...@yahoo.com" <b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Honestly, between the entire matter with this terminology that we
> just went through and the fact that some of the Scottish titles (but
> not all) can be inherited by females, it's enough to give us Peerage
> fans a monumental headache at times.
No pain no gain!:)
Richard
Hovite
On Mar 27, 6:57 pm, "b...@yahoo.com" <b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, thanks to kiwiboy and Richard we now have a better understanding
> of this whole situation.
>
> Honestly, between the entire matter with this terminology that we
> just went through and the fact that some of the Scottish titles (but
> not all) can be inherited by females
Hence the heiress presumptive to the Earldom of Mar is the Mistress of
Mar.