Talk:False titles of nobility

message: Some of these sellers enclose with the deed a coat of arms, which is not authorised by the Lord Lyon, and it is unlawful in Scotland to use or display any arms unauthorised by the Lord Lyon[10].
Is it possible to actually link to the law and find out when was the last time the law was actually enforced?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 11:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think, that Court of Lord Lyon is only ceremonial, go and ask number of football and rugby clubs...--Yopie (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I become dull 

message: Source for the British/USA is gone. Probably because it's hard to tell someone they can't legally change their title, when they can. Heck, you could change it to Emperor of the Sun if you wanted to. As long as you are not buying or selling 'official' titles. 
To be honest this entire article needs work, it's very misleading. Case in point -- It is prohibited (note that even the official site never said prohibited by law. Again, as official as a Mcdonalds Policy.) to buy or sell British titles. No, it is prohibited to buy or sell OFFICIAL British titles. 
I've reworded it to reflect a little bit of reality in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 11:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link gone 

message: It is impossible to purchase a British peerage title as such a transaction would be in breach of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, 1925.  Only titles from the semi-extinct feudal system may legally be sold.
Yes, it is illegal to buy "legal" (I used that term lightly) titles. It is not however illegal to title yourself or purchase information on how to change your name/title. 
For example : You could not buy a title which was bestowed upon another by the Queen of England, but you don't need her for that anyways. No matter who is changing the name - Queen or you, it's just a name change. Nothing illegal about it. ---Now paying thousands of dollars for the instructions, that's shady.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 11:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somewhat misleading 

message: I've reverted the latest edits by 62.64.78.179 because they muddy the article something awful, but here's the new paragraphs if anything can be savaged. There does seem to be some new facts here, but I don't know enough about the subject to pick them out.
:It is impossible to purchase genuine British titles of nobility or peerage titles, with NO ONE EXCEPTION. Somebody dream that it is possible to purchase a title of Scottish Baron, and some internet sites stated that the Barony of Macdonald was sold by the previous holder for one and half million pounds. Yes, but everything it not so simple. A possibility to buy the title of baron is an absolutely rubbish. It was possible to buy a territorial entity (called barony) even with a big castle, and it is not give you any rights to become a Baron. At the and of the day, without any fee (the only good will of the previous holder) you may receive (before 28 November 2004) a feudal jurisdiction over the territorial barony (even, if you not a landlord), and that, hypothetically, make for you a possibility to became a Baron. But nothing in this act (automatically) made a new holder a Baron and member of nobility. The fairy tale about the possibility to buy a title of baron based on misunderstanding of the real procedure. 
:The reality is following:
:Before 28 November 2004 it was possible to obtain a hereditary title of Scottish Baron out of inheritance in the blood line (same situation with German feudal titles in the time of the Empire).  It was possible to obtain feudal rights over territorial entity (territorial barony), by the way that previous holder may issue Abdication Act in favor of anybody he wishes. But, such baronies actually confers nobility only upon petition to the Crown, if the Lord Lyon King of Arms (who is a Sovereign official representative in Scotland) issued a Letters Patent granted arms of baronial form to the petitioner and his heirs , even if they were not previous of an arms-bearing family. Any way, the Abolition Feudal Tenure Act 2000, that came into force on 28 November 2004 put the end this practice. This Act preserves the dignity of baron and heraldic privileges, attached to it (of course, it is implying (only) to Barons that exists on the date 28 November 2004, because was officially recognized by the Crown through the Lord Lyon). Therefore, after 28th November 2004 the dignity of a Scottish Baron became a purely hereditary title of honour, ranking below all baronets and above all Clan Chiefs (who is not a peer of the Realm) and is a part of Scottish nobility system.
:There is not such thing as "English feudal baronies" and " Irish feudal baronies" - it was abolished by the Charles II at 1660 and 1662 without preservation of the dignity of baron for the previous holders of such baronies. Some con artists trade with such rubbish.CAVEAT EMPTOR!
:The title of Lord of the Manor, a minor feudal title (and NOT a title of nobility), however, can be traded, though not all sellers of such are genuine. The Lord of the Manor is no more than a title of a holder of dogs and ducks and the usage of such title brings to its holder no more than ridicule.CAVEAT EMTOR.
:The question of trade in honorifics brings up interesting questions of what is actually being traded, and what benefit is expected to be derived from them. A comparison can be made with unaccredited university degrees.CAVEAT EMPTOR.
:Almost all British titles of nobility (genuine only) included into the nobility encyclopedia "Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage". The last 107 addition was published at 2004. The special encyclopedia "Burke's Landed Gentry of the Kingdom in Scotland" has lot information regarding Scottish untitled nobility.
sjorford →•← 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected to an article that covers the subject correctly. Millennium Sentinel 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Shouldn't this be at "False title of nobility", in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns? —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it is more than one title, therefore, titles is correct. - S Masters (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: On 20 August 2010 His Imperial and Royal Highness Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland (not at all a joke; part of his actual legal name, by a legal name-change in the United Kingdom), and who is known here at Wikipedia by the account name Karlvondeutschland (talk), tried to attribute his own comments on this Talk page (by editing the signatures on those comments) to Donald Edward Goff, PhD, DBA.  This can be verified by the Wikipedia diff 379927315. Thanks to a very responsible editor, that change has been reversed. Donald Edward Goff, PhD, DBA (an actual real other person besides Prince Karl) is known for his opposition to those who both assume false titles and also to those who try to sell false titles (often the same people). This sort of action by Prince Karl is a significant reflection on his character.  By this action on his part, Prince Karl is showing that he is not at all trying to engage in any sort of civil discussion on false titles, but is rather trying to obfuscate and falsify the discussion on this page. Readers are thereby advised to carefully evaluate any comments that are not properly signed, or which are from anonymous IP addresses, for signs of falsification or an obscured identity. This incident is being explicitly brought to light for the benefit of new editors or reviewers who have not followed the exploits of Prince Karl on Wikipedia from the past. If this attempted identity falsification by Prince Karl was allowed to stand, it might have even been a legally actionable incident by Donald E. Goff.  Thanks again for the alert editor who reversed that change. -L.Smithfield (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsification of the identity of comments made here

message: Why can not the PDF article by Baronage Press (published from the United Kingdom) be included as an external link?  Do all external links have to actually go to a web page?  Can that PDF article be included as a reference from within the content of the article itself?  That article is a valuable resource on the discussion of false titles and would appear to be a good reference for readers of this Wiki article.  Please advise. Thanks very much for any information on this matter. -L.Smithfield (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw the edit comment from Ukexpat.  Is it because that PDF article is referenced by the other web site in the external links that it cannot itself be an external link?  Can the PDF still be cited from within the content of the Wiki article itself.  It would be a shame for a good external article like that to be missed by readers not desiring to examine the Fake Titles web site.  Thanks for information on what can be done in this sort of citation situation. - L.Smithfield (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure the PDF link can be cited as a reference in the body of the article. The point of my edit was that per WP:EL: In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website... – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for clarifying your original point.  However, the article (a PDF) that was placed as an external link in the Wiki article was not itself hosted on that other external link website (Fake Titles), but rather the case was that the other website happened to also link to that same PDF article (itself hosted on another webste, that of Baronage Press).  But I think that referencing the PDF article from within the content of the Wiki article is still preferred since in that way something of an introduction about what the external PDF article is about can be given, rather than just a lone external link being placed in the External Links section. Thanks though for bringing the no-multiple-ELs-to-same website rule to my attention even though it was not actually applicable in this particular case.  Incidentally, although I asked the question about that external PDF article, it was neither I who originally included it as an external link nor I who placed it back there.  Rather it was how best to cite the article due to its value to the present topic that was my interest. I do note though (from WP:EL) that a case for not including that PDF article (really any PDF article) could be made on the grounds that an external PDF article requires either a PDF plugin or an external PDF-viewer application, neither of which appears to be encouraged by WP:EL.  Thanks again.-L.Smithfield (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDF article in external links 

message: It is really strange to see "royalty-nobility" as being a "serious" reference here !!!
Have you explored entirely and completely their website ???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.39.39 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are legitimate.  I know that there were some questions about them many years ago, but even though they have some strange practices, they are legitimate.  Dr. D.E. Goff, DBA is now fairly well known internationally in connection with his involvement in exposing false and fraudulent titles, and he is now serving as a public representative for the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty.  Dr. Goff's public involvement with that organization gives them pretty much total legitimacy.  Also -- and more interesting -- note how those who hold, sell, or give away false titles now substantially fear that organization! :-)  That is almost the sine qua non of legitimacy now! :-) -L.Smithfield (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  royalty-nobility 

message: This artical is being used to attack an individual who is named, wikipedia articals need to stay neutral at all times, also certain links are being added to promote websites who have no formal recognition whatsoever, by editors who have formal links to the named website in question, This article requires a cleanup Johnkennedy58 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quack quack. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Artical is being used to attack an individual and promote weblinks 

message: clearly show (through an interview with you yourself) that you just made up your title. How is your title not false?
Well, Kings tend to self-style themselves. No one had the title "First Citizen" before Augustus just made it up.
So in that case were all Emperors of Rome, fake? in title? Using this reasoning, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 7:52 pm, Today (UTC+2)
* Go and  print money with these logic. Kings were not self-styled, read some books about history, coronations, Parliament etc.--Yopie (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a straw man. Give me factual evidence proving anyone has the right to tell another man what he may call himself and ask to be called. Give me factual evidence and a line of reasoning as well to prove that anyone cannot rightfully claim land ownership, as long as that's legal as a concept. See title property philosophy of law 73.69.117.221 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles in general 

message: I've seen a site that sells 'fake' titles in order to conserve Scottish lands. The titles are seen as nothing more than an amusing novelty when I look at the conversations going on in the respective forum. The people that buy them tend to understand that these titles do not give them an actual legal title. So, I think that this article should add additional viewpoints that are not completely negative. My view on this is that if someone wishes to style themselves 'Lord' and at the same time aid conservation efforts, so be it. It's 2011, seriously now... who cares? This article needs to lighten up and present an alternative view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 7:49 pm, Today (UTC+2)
* Land conservation and false titles of nobility are different matters. Hitler was lover of dogs, too..--Yopie (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land conservation 

message: Taking the Fake Lairdships section as an example, there is an absence objectivity. The undisputable fact that at least a dozen vendors of land with "Laird" titles is not mentioned.  This is clearly a legal business or Trading Standards would take action agaist them. There is no law against anyone assuming a title in the UK and no law to prevent this sort of sale.  The statements that are made in this topic are made without authoratitive or convincing references; all are from dubious, antiquated, self-serving or disreputable sources. An eight year old newpaper article. The personal opinion of Richard Bridgeman and Mr Cunningham Grahame - who is so puffed with his self importances that he states that because he has no knowledge of any conservation work done by any of these businesses it must be a lie. The debate in this section is onesided, partial and almost certainly wrong.  Most of this page is of the same low standard and Wikipedia would be a more authorative resource to simply delete it. Theblackbadger (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of this topic are extremely subjective and probably just plain wrong 

message: Sealand is not a real country. Adding it to this page is of dubious relevance in any case, but adding it in the section addressing false British titles is simply wrong, as even the Sealand people don't pretend that their titles are British peerages. This is another example of promotion of Sealand in Wikipedia, sometimes done unwittingly by editors who have an interest in this wholly fictional entity. Horologium (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If a section must be added called "Sealand" then I would rather suggest that a more general section be added called "Micronations."  Sealand is just one of several so-called micronations that are trying to sell titles of nobility. --L.Smithfield (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealand 

message: This page, despite being renamed, appears to be a trolling page. I am surprised that it has survived so long. The sale of Noble Titles is regulated in the UK. However this page is about False Titles of Nobility.  The sale of these in the UK is not prohibited and indeed are very popular. Novelty Titles priced at the £20 mark are publicly sold in shops and on dozens of Internet Gift Sites. To pretend otherwise as this page does is at best misleading and at worst the work of people who disapprove of a legal business. At the prices charged, nobody imagines that they are being sold a Title of Nobility. 
Half of the page is given over to genuine titles of Nobility. These should be described elsewhere. Other titles are not in any sense Noble. Lord of the Manor and Laird titles are courtesy titles similar to Mister and Squire, which denote status in a very superficial way. They are not Noble.
The waters are further muddied by introducing red herrings such as Lord Lyon, whose archaic role is restricted to Scotland and serves, if at all, as a colourful living museum. His role is ceremonial only nowadays, despite the medieval role that he doubtless once played.
To give the illusion of completeness, a few other rumours of how things stand in several other European Countries is added.
From time to time, con men have sold fake titles of Nobility for thousands of pounds. This is not recorded here and is probably sufficiently rare for Wikipedia to ignore. This page demeans Wikipedia. It is partial, non-authoritative, badly referenced, superficial, incomplete and often just plain wrong.  My vote would be to delete it.  Open24hours (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling page 

message: If the use of the term “false” does not equate with illegal then what is the objective measure of false? With any regards, this article has definite polemic features that defy neutrality and objectivity. For instance, this article omits the fact that any individual using a title of nobility in a country that no longer recognizes nobility possesses no nobility as a matter of law—this is true even if a person’s ancestors were noble under law. Indeed, this article connotes something different, that a title recognized at some point “in the past” (from introductory paragraph) is somehow a legitimate mark of nobility; if nobility is expressively outlawed by the government then those titles of the past have no legitimacy (of nobility) about them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociologistonthefacts (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Objective or Neutral  

message: A number of commentators on this talk page make claims of lack of accuracy or that the page is unsupported, however do not identify any particular points on the page that this applies to.  They should do so precisely on this talk page if they have any reservations about the content.  Having had a cursory look at the article, actually it appears well sourced, and thus supported, and contains factually accurate comment according to the reliable sources quoted.  For example, I note amongst the sources the following:-
1.  The British Embassy in the USA.
2.  A book written by an expert, Innes of Learney (recognised as an expert in source 3).
3.  A Court's legal decision.
4.  A publication from a government department, the Land Registry.
I could go on.  Many of the other sources share this authoritative status (e.g. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 & 16).  This suggests that the article is factually accurate and supported by reliable sources.
One commentator above refers to the Lord Lyon as being a purely ceremonial figure in an attempt to quash the worth of his statements.  In fact, the government confirm him to be a judge of a court , still making legal decisions in the present day.  Also, source 3 refers to one of these decisions and also the Lord Lyon's legal jurisdiction over names and titles.  The most recent reference to the Lord Lyon (15) confirms the meaning of the word 'Laird' in Scotland and states that its use is inappropriate in the context suggested by the sellers of the small plots of land, even though those people buying the plots are doing nothing illegal in calling themselves whatever they wish.  They will only become guilty of a crime (fraud) if they pretend to be something they are not and receive any financial advantage owing to doing so.  This is the factual position.
All this suggests that a number of criticisms raised about the page are without substance and are presumably from either people who have bought fake titles and do not want others to realise their titles are fake or from the people who are selling the same.
If people want this page to be modified, please can we have some sensible and evidence-based suggestions as to why and how this should be done. There is perhaps the argument that the section on genuine British titles could be deleted, as they do not fall under the heading of the article. Perhaps we could get some consensus on this point at least? Editor8888 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: British titles are the most sought after and abused internationally (probably because of the very substantial international recognition and popularity of the Commonwealth Crown, currently embodied in the person of HM Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms).  The section outlining genuine British titles appears to be a quite good and succinct summary of British titles.  The article British nobility could be referenced as supplemental information on the subject, but at present that article does not address the subject of Scottish titles (which are also among the most abused British titles) as well as they are explained, if only briefly, in the present article.  Neither does the article British nobility explain the English manorial title.  In fact, I am not sure what Wiki article is best at actually explaining the English manorial title Lord of the Manor of X.  So my own view at the present time is that this section is a valuable assist to those who may come to the present article with questions on what is or is not a genuine British title.  I would therefore recommend that this section remain for the present. --L.Smithfield (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Weak criticisms

message: 1.	“False” is a value latent adjective, which may have a derogatory affect. A neutral modifier such as “unrecognized,” which describes the condition but doesn’t connote judgment outside of such recognition would be more appropriate considering Wikipedia’s neutral point of view. If an individual is able to style him or herself Baron and government is unable or unwilling to bring charges against a person so calling themselves such then it appears they have a de facto right to the title whether or not the government endorses it. There are numerous political, philosophical, and legal scholarly treatise arguing that use of property—in this case, intellectual—establishes a legal right. “False” may simply be inaccurate to describe anybody who claims a title without government recognition or historical precedent. Wikipedia articles should not aim to establish fact but to describe phenomena from a neutral point of view.
2.	The introductory description is not supported by citations nor necessarily evident from the rest of the article. The introduction states that “fake” titles are “fabricated” and or “not recognized by any government”; what is the source of this global opinion? Any such citations should be broadly inclusive and not just the position of, say, the UK (unless the article is titled Fake titles of Nobility of the United Kingdom). Furthermore, the opening connotes that titles that may have once existed in countries that no longer recognize nobility are somehow legitimate by arguing that “fake” titles are those that have never had recognition by “any government and were not so recognized in the past, even in countries in which titles of nobility once existed.”  Where no nobility exist as a fact of government, any title of nobility would be a false title if it hinges on government recognition. 
3.	The article does not purport a global perspective but makes global declarations by arguing that “fake” titles are those that have never had recognition by “any government and were not so recognized in the past.” Many cultures and societies have titled elites, which may or may not have government recognition. For instance, Nigeria has many small city-state Kingdoms that don’t have official government roles but play a ceremonial role; in 1970 Efuntola Oseijeman Adelabu Adefunmi I from North Carolina declared himself an Oba (king) and purportedly gained some recognition among traditional Yoruba priests. Some cultures that lack de-jure self-governance nevertheless recognize a titled elite (e.g. King of the Gypsies occasionally recognized by Roma bands, Kohen and Levites among Jewish people, etc. etc.). Anthropologists have tended to favor describing traditional elites according to tradition and culture rather than by law ([João de Pina-Cabral and Antónia Pedroso de Lima from Elites: Choice, Leadership, and Succession); such a position might be more accurate (albeit not a legitimizing defense of a “legal” nobility). 
4.	In discussing British titles there is legal opinion and debate that feudal titles can be adversely possessed (adverse possession) by use and there are at-least two judgments asserting adverse possession of feudal rights(one in favor of the Crown Estate and one in favor of the estate of the Dukes of Beaufort). Furthermore, use of property establishes rights to property, including incorporeal and intellectual property, if the original property owner fails to bring judgment against adverse use within a  statutory period of time; for instance, if a trademark is publically infringed upon against the duration of the statutory period without the original trademark owner pressing charges, the original trademark owner loses his right to prevent the infringing party from using his mark and looses a right to collect compensation for damages. The concept is a general legal principal based on statutory limitations and applies to the whole gamut of civil actions that can be brought to bear against an individual for alleged violation of another’s property, both real and incorporeal (the latter applies to feudal titles). It’s intuitive to argue that adverse possession of a feudal title is not authentic because of the lack of a historical and cultural basis but such argument doesn’t create a legal basis for a denial of rights to use such title unless one has a historical claim and brings action against infringement within the statutory period of the infringers open use of the title.
5.	It’s not entirely clear from the article why a self-styled title of nobility is a false title of nobility. There are individuals that publicly style themselves, for instance, the Baron of Caux, without any government bringing charges against them. If an individual claims to be a member of the House of Lords and is not then that clearly constitutes fraud but governments don’t seem to be too concerned about individuals who claim to be Barons or Dukes without claiming government office or sanction. Considering that the legal nature of feudal titles as honors is not resolved, is in the least testament that an honor, or nobility, does not necessarily equate with the peerage nor is the system in which it is lodged fully fathomable—thereby how can it be qualitatively and definitely ascertained the Baron Rose, if not a peer, is not noble in his own right. It seems to me, an ascertain, either way, is a philosophical rather than absolute argument as being a peerless Baron of a self-declared nature does not seem prohibited by many governments including those constituting the United Kingdom. 
6.	Declarative sentences should be explained and scholarly references should be described.  For instance the statement, “Outside monarchies, a distinction can be drawn between a legitimate historical title which is no longer recognized under a successor state (such as republic) but borne by hereditary heirs, as opposed to an invented or falsely-attributed title of nobility claimed without any historic basis.[17]”… Makes a claim as a matter of fact but doesn’t explain how the “distinction” is made nor does it explicate the declarative as scholarly opinion. An expert’s opinion is still an opinion… Good articles on Wikipedia introduce the source of a propositional statement and makes explicit that the proposition is from the source and not a fact of law or nature.
7.	This article would do well to demarcate the phenomenon as a $50 novelty certificate is far from being the same as multi-thousand dollar title offered for sale on the claim that it has historical and legal basis when it is not, which is also different from those sold by micronations with no political recognition as state entities and make no such claim, which is also different from those who style themselves without any political claim. The article on micronations makes such distinctions and because the founders of micronations use, create, and sell titles some citations may be transferable. However, micronations as a broader phenomenon has attracted much more attention than the phenomenon of fake titles and as such may have a “notability” (in terms of scholarly attention) that doesn’t exist for an article on “fake” titles.
8.	There is a history of “assumed titles”, which the article neglects. Many members of French gentry assumed titles, which became locally or officially recognized as a matter of tradition. The Marquis and Count de Sade is an example of an aristocratic family that assumed their titles. An example of an uncertain title that had the effect of authenticity amongst the continental European nobility is the Count of St. Germain.
9.	For counterbalance, reference should be made of the ideologies that turn the table (so to speak). Thomas Pain, for instance, argued that the monarch’s distinction among men was undeserving and false.  In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson argued that the aristocracy of primogeniture was a false aristocracy “pseudo-aristoi” and advocated a natural aristocracy of ability “aristoi”. From this philosophical perspective, the true aristocracy arises from the population as a matter of ability and virtue while government sanctioned hereditary systems were artificial and false, thus it is the “peers” of England who are false nobles (a literal belief during the American revolution).  This perspective has roots with Plato’s republican “philosopher king” and Aristotle’s great-souled man, which is echoed in the mediaeval legal philosophy of natural nobility (found in the work of Bartolus, Dante, and others). 
10.	The article may not be notable. An online search for fake noble titles reveals that the media largely neglects the concern and the main sites that educate the public are written from the perspective of the “legitimate” nobility, monarchist, or members of orders of knighthood—thus much web-published information is polemic, not without self-interested bias towards preserving the status of the commentator’s identity or monarchical beliefs. There are barely any articles of interest on JSTOR, the premier database of scholarly peer-reviewed articles. The one I found argues against the proposition that the French aristocracy survived the revolution—in fact argues that historical sources cannot ascertain the strength and relevancy of the French nobility after the revolution. As a matter of current concern there doesn’t, to date, appear to be a single peer reviewed article on the phenomenon of “fake titles of nobility”  in the humanities, legal scholarship, or social sciences. A test of “notability”—albeit limited—might be to consider whether the author or publication of a source is notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entry. Being that thousands of court cases are heard every day, some on trivial matters, not even court cases should be assumed notable; perhaps they can be tested for notability against the quality of media and or scholarly attention they receive. 
11.	An alternative to relegating either a “non-notable” article or an article that claims universality from a restricted cultural and legal perspective might be to “report” the concept of authenticity under a more specific article such as a subsection under the article on “British Nobility.”
END  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociologistonthefacts (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improving the Article 

message: It seems that some of the 'issues arising' with this article could be resolved by having several interlinked articles. Fraud of various kinds (whether selling titles that do not exist or cannot be sold, and persons claiming to be what they are not etc) is one thing; the transferrability or not of titles is possibly another; and persons assuming titles for amusement/as part of a persona (paralleling the use-names of many singers etc) and 'arising from membership of a group, re-enactment society etc' is something else again (and there is no intent to cause any negative result on others beyond perhaps queue jumping). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: "Knights are people who have been knighted... " is a circular definition.
Something like "Knights are people who have admitted into a chivalric order..." would be better.
--23.119.204.117 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  circular definition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on False titles of nobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331084420/http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf to http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331084420/http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf to http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331084420/http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf to http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose merging Scam title into False titles of nobility. Most of the content of Scam title is already covered better on this page.Kappasi (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The article claimed that German nobility was "not abolished 'per se'". This is false. All prerogatives of German nobility were abolished in Article 109 of the 1919 Weimar Constitution. The former titles could be, and often were retained as part of the surname, but carry no legal significance whatsoever. For example, neither the adopted Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt, nor the natural Eduard Prinz von Anhalt are in any way, shape or form the prince of anything. -- Seelefant (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German nobility was abolished