Talk:Earl of Stirling

message: There is some dispute over this text; as no evidence has been forthcoming about it, nor has the claim been recognized by the British Gov't.  I am moving it here for further discussion.
:In August 1999 an American, Timothy Alexander of Greenan, Baron of Greenan in Scotland and former Scottish Editor of Burke's Peerage, used the ancient Scots Peerage Law process of an Assumption-at-Law to assume the titles. This is the normal process used for succession to dormant Scottish Peerage titles and the holder of an assumed title remains the title holder until and unless successfully challenged in a proper legal venue. No such legal action has been undertaken, nor is one possible under current law (House of Lords Act of 1999; Royal Warrant of June 2004 establishing the Roll of the Peerage). Scots Peerage Law differs on several major points from English Peerage Law and the process of succession is one of the most important differences, with English (and GB and UK) title holders having to first prove their claim, whereas Scottish title holders first assume their titles and are subject to a legal challenge only thereafter ("Hewlett on Scottish Dignities"; "The Sixteen Peers of Scotland"). In December 1999, the current Lord Stirling sat in the Peers Gallery on the floor of the House of Lords, as the Earl of Stirling, sitting as the guest of the then Leader of the House of Lords (House of Lords).
:The current Earl of Stirling has petitioned for a resettlement-by-letters patent to eliminate the rules of male primogeniture with regard to the succession to his family's titles. This has not been approved by the present British Government and the current Earl lost an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights, Alexander v. United Kingdom, #23913/04) over this issue on a legal point in 2005.
As noted above, I have been unable to locate (albeit after a very cusory search) the above case.  Further thoughts on inclusion/removal? --Hansnesse 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's utter nonsense. Proteus (Talk) 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Unless someone puts forth a valid source, it should not be included in the article. --Cymsdale 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm..  If you are in fact the Earl of Sterling you're not supposed to alter your own article.  And currently, the factuality of that section of the article is being disputed.  Either provide a source supporting the information in that article, or drop the issue, please.--Vercalos 02:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timothy Alexander 

message: :It sounds like an article about the controversy over the title of Stirling would be more interesting than the Earl of Stirling article itself.  Is it notable enough to warrant its own article? Unfortunately, my instinct would say no. --Cymsdale 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting perhaps, but not of encyclopedic value. People make bogus claims all the time. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, and drawing attention to a bogus claim really only benefits the person making it.  Although, I'm going to admit too much ignorance about this particular issue to state for sure if it is bogus or not. --Cymsdale 23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As he'd have to have proved his claim to be entered, and he hasn't, then he can't be. The article is accurate and these claims unprovenAlci12 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice story, but this is'nt a court, so you don't need to explain your claim to us. We will add you to the list, if your claim is confirmed by the Government and the House of Lords, not rather. In addition, I wonder how somebody (especially an "Earl") can be so eager to be represented at Wikipedia. ~~ Phoe talk 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Be careful what you wish for...

message: It is true that according to Scottish law anyone with a peerage automatically becomes Chief of the Clan of their name.(This might be true only if the title is the same as the name, without any territorial additions. For example, Lord Jones might be chief of Clan Jones but Lord Jones of Smithville would not. fitzw) Mr. Alexander thought that, since he had bought the Barony of Greenan, he should become Chief of the Clan. He has misunderstood that the Barony of Greenan is NOT a peerage, but is a FEUDAL TITLE, and therefore simply having one does not affect the chiefship of Clans in any way - if this were the case, there would be dozens of claims to Chiefships! Alexander thought that if he was Chief of Clan Alexander he could become Earl of Stirling - but the only way he could become Chief of the Clan would be by proving he were the rightful claimant to the Earldom, which he clearly has not. He has confused the Peerage with the Feudal nobility - it should be made clear that a Peerage CANNOT be bought on the open market (unless you know Lord Levy, of course!); only Scottish feudal titles can be bought in this way, and they confer no rights or privileges at all except to be known as 'Baron of X', and certainly not 'Lord X'.--Abc163 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put simply...