Talk:Earl of Stirling

Tim Alexander - Please cite sources when adding new information

Before making large changes to this article please discuss first, here on the talk page. Make sure that you cite sources. It would also help if sources could be found for the information currently in the article. Editors should also be aware of the three revert rule, which is official policy. Feel free to direct general editing questions towards my talk page, but things related to this article should be discussed here. Petros471 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all persons leaving me off of the list of Alexander Earls of Stirling: Be advised that I intend to defend my legal rights in appropriate jurisdictions. Stirling (Earl of Stirling) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs) .

Please read WP:NLT and WP:V policies. --Hansnesse 09:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, his intention to defend his alleged legal rights is not necessarily a legal threat against another wikipedia user. --Cymsdale 21:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find the case "Alexander v. United Kingdom" on HUDOC, which was added by the above. I may have missed it, however. --Hansnesse 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Alexander

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)[reply]

It's utter nonsense. Proteus (Talk) 19:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless someone puts forth a valid source, it should not be included in the article. --Cymsdale 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You self appointed experts are violating my rights. Stirling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs) .

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)[reply]

Sources have been provided, if you would read the article you would see the sources.

This online magazine is not so sure the claim is valid. Silly Dan 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 68.179.175.185 for 24 hours and legal threats. He won't be able to respond here for the moment, it might head off a renewed edit war if you could try and work out some differences on his talk page for now. It's frustrating to see responses and not be able to answer them. Just a thought, thanks, Rx StrangeLove 03:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

First off let me say that the owner of the Baronage Press is an associate of a former associate of mine who I was involved in a legal dispute with. I would have brought a lawsuit against him years ago but with his legal record and lack of resources, I felt that any such lawsuit was simply a waist of money on my part. I do note that you have again made reference to his false comments.

The comments that you give in reference to "the usual way ...." are largely reflective of English Peerage Law NOT Scottish Peerage Law and in any case are totally out of date and for very specific legal reasons do NOT apply in my case. Once again, you are dealing in matters that you do not understand but don't seem to mind injuring me in the process.

Your comments referring to "rights under the title" and the title as name simply do NOT make sense or reflect Scots Peerage Law. Shame on you for speaking with authority when you have no background or foundation in the relevent law or history.

I have given you the correct information regarding the EU Court of Human Rights case as provided by the Court. If you are too lazy to find the material do not blame me.

There is NO COURT CASE challenging my assumption of the title nor has there ever been such a court case. I have never said that there was any challenge of my assumption in a court of law or in any proper legal venue and in fact I have said the opposite. Again, your facts are all wrong, you speak with authority about a matter that you do not understand and yet have no problem in causing serious harm to me in the process.

The reference to the House of Lords was given when it was demanded of me that I prove what I had said about sitting in the House of Lords (Peers Gallery) as the Earl of Stirling.

Either remove the false information on me and the reference to it in all material on these sites or I will take legal steps. Change the entry for the Earl of Stirling to reflect the legally correct status of the earldom and my holding of same or face a serious legal action in one or more nations. Stirling

I've blocked this editor for making legal threats in several parts of this page. The block is 48 hours in length. Feel free to discuss on his talk page if you'd like. Rx StrangeLove 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion of this has taken place at User_talk:68.179.175.185, and User_talk:Hansnesse#Stirling. I am moving the comment from my talk page here for further discussion. --Hansnesse 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments that "the court" has to establish the succession to the earldom, this could not be further from the truth. Scots Peerage Law does NOT work like that. This is exactually what I am speaking of when I say that I do not intend to argue with people who do not understand Scots Peerage Law. In approximately 18 years I have had extensive dealing with senior government officials in the United Kingdom and Canada, including the Queen herself. I have sat in the House of Lords, in the Peers Gallery (I am not a UK citizen and cannot be a working Peer) AS THE Earl of Stirling (that can be confirmed via the House of Lords, hence the entry giving the House of Lords as a reference). I have been contacted by UK cabinet members, in writing, as the Earl of Stirling. I gave specific reference information to the case that was before the EU Human Rights Court (this was a case over the male only rules of succession; not a case over my assumption of the titles; it was referenced by me as a outside source to establish that I am not just makeing this all up; you have to dig to confirm it ~ it is totally unfair to just say that you can't locate the case!). I have followed Scots Peerage Law in considerable detail with my assumption of the titles (some specific reference material was given by myself; that COULD HAVE been checked into). I have NOT been legally challenged in any legal venue in about 18 years over my right to the Earldom (under Scots Peerage Law one assumes the title and then and ONLY IF SUCCESSFULLY challenged in a proper legal venue does one lose the rights to the title; in fact, due to the specific history of my claim and the changes in the law/House of Lords rules/etc., there is no legal way to challenge my succession at the present time, and this was referenced by me). I was the Honorary Scottish Editor at Burke's Peerage close to 20 years ago under the late Harold Brooks-Baker and I have extensive documents/etc. that can prove this; where is there evidence that I WAS NOT the Scottish Editor? There have been comments that the "government" does not recognize me as Earl of Stirling. I would dearly like to see some WRITTEN EVIDENCE of this. I am not involved in Wikipedia except that I sought to update the information on the Earl of Stirling. There was a series of comments made that are false and I insist that Wikipedia not continue to deflame me or to continue to list the Earls of Stiring without listing me. Everyone there seems to get very upset that I have mentioned my legal rights, sorry this is a most serious matter and I will not let it go away. In reviewing the comments made by others, I see no evidence that anyone has done any serious research into this, or that anyone knows anything about the complex field of Scots Peerage Law. A peerage is a very serious matter, and in this case the peerage is linked to a set of historically important Canadian honorific hereditary offices-of-state. I have held off taking the matter to the law courts, because I am trying to be reasonable and I have no general objection to Wikipedia except what has happened in my specific case. But I want you to understand that what has been happening here is a most serious matter that I cannot allow to continue. Stirling

Thanks for the thorough response. As I read it, your claim is that you have assumed the title, and that under Scottish peerage law, a claim of title is sufficient to grant it, notwithstanding a court case challenging it. This seems to be at odds with the findings of baronage, which indicates

The usual way to establish the right to inherit a title is to apply for a Writ of Summons to attend Parliament (a procedure that will have to be reviewed in the light of new legislation abolishing the hereditary parliamentary rights of peers), and then the Committee for Privileges examines the validity of the documentation supporting the line of descent of the claimant and his relationship to the previous holder of the peerage title.

This, it should be noted, is to establish the rights under the title, rather than just the assumption of the title. If you are not assuming the rights under the title "Earl of Stirling," it seems to me that all it is is a name, and thus is not notable by Wikipedia standards (anymore so than myself assuming by personal decree, another title), and certainly impossible to verify.

Regarding further attempts at verification, I think there is simply a miscommunication here. I took the information given on the court case you discuss to my local law school library, and neither myself nor the librarian were able to locate it. If you could provide further information about it, such as the volume and page as would be given in a traditional case citation, rather than the docket number which you seem to have provided, I would be happy to investigate further. Likewise, a citation to "House of Lords" is not a source; no library has such a volume. What is needed is a published source, per Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Not to belabor the point, but personal papers are likewise not really a good source of the information, since no one else can check them. Information should also be verifiable, not assumed true until disproven (I'm sure you can see the wisdom in this). So your question "where is there evidence that I WAS NOT the Scottish Editor?" is not answerable. If it is to be in an encyclopedia, we must be able to find that fact in a published source.

In short, I do think a published source for all your claims, including the assumption of title, is important for inclusion in Wikipedia. If such is impossible, I do not think it should be included per verifiability policy

Thanks again for the reply, I look forward to a fruitful discussion. --Hansnesse 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lexis/Nexis search results

Please note that my pasting these articles here could be seen as copyvio, so please don't put them in the main article space. I feel that these articles are necessary to establish to the mostly American editors the history and context of Mr. Alexander's activities. Thatcher131 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Greenan

A JUDGE ruled yesterday that the American Baron of Greenan was not the sole owner of the title and its associated castle in Ayrshire.

A firm specialising in the sale of heraldic titles and land was granted an order by Lord Weir at the Court of Session in Edinburgh saying that it had a partnership with Timothy Alexander, and was entitled to a share of any profit from the sale of Greenan Castle and the barony.

Mr Alexander, 41, a history teacher and property investor from Evansville, Indiana, is of Scots descent and is the president of a Delaware corporation, Historic Scottish Properties.

The court heard that Lord Ailsa sold the castle and barony in 1988 for £15,000 and that the title was recorded in Mr Alexander's name.

Brooks Marketing, of Rickett Street, London, which is controlled by Burke's Peerage Partnership, claimed it had an agreement with Mr Alexander who was to act as a heraldic consultant.

It was said that Mr Alexander, who is also known as Baron Alexander of Greenan, paid £3000 of the purchase price of the castle, with Brooks paying the remainder.

The firm said the plan was to sell the property as soon as possible to a suitable purchaser, with the profits being shared.

Brooks said that suitable prospective purchasers were found who were prepared to buy the property, including the barony, for sums "considerably in excess of the total expense of purchase".

But the firm claimed that Mr Alexander had deliberately obstructed negotiations and refused to agree to the sale.

Mr Alexander was said to have declared that he was the sole owner of the castle and Baron of Greenan, and was entitled to make exclusive use of the title.

He said there had been no partnership between him and Brooks over the the castle and barony.

Brooks asked the Judge to declare that there was a partnership and that the castle and barony were assets of it.

Mr Alexander was not represented before Lord Weir, who said the American had been told of the hearing and the possible result of his failing to appear.

The Judge said that he was prepared to grant the order sought by Brooks, which will now negotiate with Mr Alexander over the sale of the castle and the barony.

Greenan part 2

Lack of chivalry over sale of fabled Camelot sparks joust

BYLINE: Ron Mckay

CAMELOT is for sale. But if you're interested you won't just need a large chequebook, you'll need a long legal sword and suitable financial armour.

According to some Arthurian researchers, the locus of the Round Table was at Greenan, three miles south-west of Ayr, where there's a ruin of a castle, now for sale, as well as the barony which goes with it. And there, sirrah, is the problem.

Because the Baron of Greenan, aka Timothy Alexander of Indiana, is hopping mad. He says that the title is being sold over his head and is threatening to sue anyone who buys it all the way to the House of Lords.

Alexander, an American historian of Scottish descent, bought the title and the castle for £ 15,000 in 1988. However, four years later he lost a court action when it was ruled that he didn't have the sole right to the title because Brooks Marketing, a company owned by the directors of Burke's Peerage, had put up £ 12,000 of the price and were Alexander's partners in the deal and the title. The game plan, rather unchivalrously, had been to buy and sell Camelot and make a fat profit as quickly as possible.

When I tracked down the baron he claimed that he had been stitched up, that he hadn't been able to afford to defend the action and that his title could not be legally sold without his permission. "I would say to anyone who thinks they can buy the title that I will challenge their right to use it. They would be buying a pig in a poke, because my rights and privileges as baron are enshrined in Article 22 of the 1707 Treaty of Union and can only be taken away by an Act of Attainment. Anyone who buys this castle and title is going to end up going all the way to the House of Lords."

I tried to talk to Harold Brooks-Baker, of Brooks Marketing and Burke's Peerage, but after following a trail of answering machine messages I ended up in France on a number where no one knew of him. But I did talk to a nice woman at the company handling the sale who told me that this was a surplus title.

"What you find is that quite a number of the aristocracy have more than one title and sell off one or two when times get a bit tough." She added that there were various statutory obligations involved in the maintenance of the stately ruin, "a bit like a tree under a preservation order".

Whatever else, a good old-fashioned joust is on the cards.

Stirling?

The Express May 5, 2001

AMERICAN 'EARL' BIDS TO CHANGE SEXIST LAW

BYLINE: BY TIM BUGLER

AN American historian who claims to be a Scottish earl is attempting to overturn Scotland's "sexist" laws of succession.

Estate agent Timothy Alexander, 50, from Evansville, Indiana, claims to have acquired the title of Earl of Stirling using the little-known Scots peerage law of "assumption."

He also claims to have attained the ranks of Lord Lieutenant of Canada, Lord Alexander of Tullibody, Earl of Dovan, and Chief of the Clan Alexander. Now he wants the Queen to change the law of male primogeniture, so that his sister can inherit his titles upon his death.

The 'Earl', who deals in historic European real estate, has also written to Labour-controlled Stirling Council to enlist its support in putting his case to Scots Secretary Helen Liddell, whom he hopes will take it to the Queen. He said yesterday: "I claimed the Earldom 11 years ago. My wife died in 1999 and we didn't have children. I have a younger brother. He doesn't have children either. I want to pass my titles on to my sister, who does. Why should my sister be disenfranchised because of gender? A Labour government and a woman Secretary of State should be supportive of this."

Signing himself "Stirling" in a letter to all 22 council members, the 'Earl' says it would be "helpful" if councillors wrote to Mrs Liddell to back his case. He said: "I am a voice in the wilderness calling for an end to the legally-based sexism of male primogeniture. I have this grand-sounding title, but I'm really just a nobody living in Indiana.

"I have no influence on the Government, so I'm asking Stirling Council for help in convincing the Secretary of State to recommend to Her Majesty that I be given a resettlement to myself and my heirs, by Letters Patent of my titles in birth rank order, without the rules of male succession.

"Scots Peerage Law does allow for it. The requested resettlement would eliminate sexist rules. While it would not change all peerage titles, it would be an important beginning."

The Earldom of Stirling was created in 1633 when Charles I visited Stirling Castle and made Viscount Stirling an earl. The last Earl died in 1768. There have been two bogus claims to the earldom since his death, but Mr Alexander insists he is the genuine heir.

One of his claims in his letter to the council - to have been "once the Scottish Editor at the famous Burke's Peerage publishing house in London" - was challenged last night however. Harold Brook-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, said: "Mr Alexander was never the editor of any of our publications."

Mr Brook-Baker said the head of the Stirling family was Archibald Stirling of Keir, former husband of Dame Diana Rigg. Mr Brook-Baker added: "He would be very surprised to learn of Mr Alexander's claims to be the Earl."

Goodness! Of course, the late Mr Brooks-Baker himself was never editor of any publication known as Burke's Peerage... see his article or better, this talk page for more on the eminently quotable but never authoritative Mr. Brooks-Baker. Though in this case, he seems to have gotten it right<g>. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doubly interesting since given the claim of 'Stirling' above:

I was the Honorary Scottish Editor at Burke's Peerage close to 20 years ago under the late Harold Brooks-Baker and I have extensive documents/etc. that can prove this;

--Hansnesse 01:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Baker was relying on was that people would hear "Burke's Peerage", the name of a company, and think of "Burke's Peerage", the name of a publication (with which the company had no current connection). Lord only knows what the "honorary" Scottish editor of an imaginary publication does.... - Nunh-huh 01:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that in the 2001 article Brooks-Baker felt no need to mention, and the reporter was apparently unable to discover, the earlier dust-up over Greenan...he acts as though he's never heard of the guy, when clearly they had some kind of relationship in the past. john k 15:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the revised article on Burke's Peerage if you're interested in its credibility. Thatcher131 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a new web service opened in November 2006 by the British Government, (allowing members of the public to petition the Prime Minister on any subject) a petition submitted under the name of ‘Earl of Stirling of Clan Alexander’…….‘To end rules of male primogenture with regard to succession to the Earldom of Stirling …’ was rejected … because:  It contained the names of family members of elected representatives or officials of public bodies Additional information about this rejection: This is a personal matter and we cannot be sure that this is genuine.

In his submission of 2 March 2006 Mr Alexander says:_ "There have been comments that the "government" does not recognize me as Earl of Stirling. I would dearly like to see some WRITTEN EVIDENCE of this." The rejection of his petition would seem to confirm that they don't. Had the petition been submitted by anyone else, the probability is that it might have been allowed to proceed. The stinging final comment 'we cannot be sure that this is genuine' is telling. Sam the Hobbit 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam the Hobbit 18:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sam the Hobbit, did you consider that the rejection referred to (1)name of family members of elected representatives or officials of public bodies; (2)this is a personal matter and we cannot be sure that this is genuine (anyone could email in such a request). But you deduct whatever you want to. For your information, I have documents recognizing me as Earl/Governor/etc. from Buckingham Palace. You are out of your league and making comments on matters that you are not qualified to comment on. Shame on you "Mr." Hobbit. Earl of Stirling

Be careful what you wish for...

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)[reply]

Interesting perhaps, but not of encyclopedic value. People make bogus claims all the time. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the article is fine the way it is and we do not need to mention Mr. Tim Alexander aka Earl Stirling. However, since Mr. Stirling was making legal threats about being left out of the article, it is worth mentioning that we could add him to the article using these verifiable independent sources, and the article would not only be unflattering but legally unassailable.Thatcher131 00:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information about Tim Alexander’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is available to any one who asks for copies of the records that are available to the public. Application no. 23913/04 is the correct identification of the appeal that was filed on 1 July 2004 (which happens to be Canada Day, in Canada). The Deputy Section Registrar, Mark Villigar, wrote in 2005 to Mr. Alexander: The case was heard on 6 October 2005 by a Committee of three judges. They “decided under Article 28 of the Convention to declare the application inadmissible because it did not comply with the requirements set out in Articles 34 and35 of the Convention. In light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found that they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. This decision is final and not subject to any appeal to either the Court, including its Great Chamber, or any other body. …The file will be destroyed one year after the dispatch of this letter.” (Oct 2006). It should be noted further that HUDOC only publishes decisions taken by a Chamber of at least seven judges.

Mr. Alexander also refers to two books: The Sixteen Peers of Scotland: An Account of the Elections of the Representative Peers of Scotland 1707 – 1959, by Sir James Fergusson of Kilkerran, 8th Baronet (1960); Notes on Dignities in the Peerage of Scotland Which are Dormant or which Have Been Forfeited by William Oxenham Hewlett, F.S.A., (1882).

Having reviewed both books twice, I have failed to find the specific allusion to Assumption-at-law that Mr. Alexander makes. I would be grateful if he could point them out. On the contrary, there are some statements of interest. 1. In Notes, on page 10 there is the statement “… the Stair case appears to show that no power can exist in any person to alter or affect the course of the descent of a Peerage of Scotland as previously settled, by any act done after the Union.” 2. Also on the same page appears “It was the practice to restore dormant Dignities either by Charter, Letters Patent, or Royal Warrant.” 3. In The Sixteen, on page 61 appears the statement in the chapter “Claimants” that “In general, the clerks adopted the view that they were bound to admit the vote of any Peer whose title was on the Union Roll.” 4. And on page 62, appears “It is right to make plain that the acceptance of a claimant’s vote at a peerage election in no way establishes or even strengthens his right to a title, and does not justify his assuming it.”

On 24 July 1999, the National Post ( a Canadian newspaper) reported that “His claim is based largely on the fact that Scottish case law recognizes the ‘senior male’ in a clan as a potential chieftain. Mr. Alexander claims to be the senior male of the Clan Alexander because he has already purchased a Scottish barony – a piece of property in Ayshire with a set of castle ruins that automatically qualified him for the title of Baron of Greenan. ‘I am the sole member of the nobility of Scotland who is also a member of this clan.”

Since it has been reported elsewhere that the court ordered the Barony sold by his partners, his initial claim seems to have dispelled.

The same article repeats the comments of Elizabeth Roads, Lyon Clerk, that “This title has been dormant for quite some time now and I don’t think he’s proved to the Crown’s satisfaction that this title should be resettled.”

There is a lack of evidence of genealogical credibility that links him to the First Earl of Stirling. When a peerage is granted with the condition that it is inherited by the heirs male of the grantee, there is an interesting situation in Scots law. After the descendent males of the body have been extinguished, then one begins to look at the First Earl’s brothers and their descendent males. After that, one looks at the First Earl’s uncles and their males, ad infinitum.

fitzw 27 March 2006 10:29 pm EST

Tim Stirlimg gave a passing reference to the Roll of the Peerage. This was initiated by Letters Patent issued by Her Majesty on 1st of June 2004 after the Blair government did its thing with the House of Lords in 1999. The Roll lists who is entitled to be addressed as a Peer in the historic peerages of the UK and Ireland. More interesting is the condition by clause 3 of the Letters Patent that government officials will be prohibited from addressing a person as a Peer unless that person is entered on the Roll. The Roll is maintained within the Department for Constitutional Affairs (under direction of the Lord Chancellor.) Is Tim Alexander enrolled there? fitzw 15 April 2006 11:48 pm EST.

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)[reply]

Perhaps you can provide a link to the Roll to PROVE your position; or perhaps there is a legal reason why it has not been published?!!

I will answer your comments. Re: "The Information about...." the court case failed on a technicality as they felt that I had not run the matter through the UK courts (I disagree with this view as the UK courts could claim that they lack jurisdiction do to Parliamentary sovereignty). The court ruling was NOT over me being the Earl or not being the Earl. The writers (fitzw) use of "Mr. Alexander" is insulting and reflects a already made up mindset without the foundation in Scots Peerage Law on which to base such an opinion. Re: "Having reviewed both books....." Wow you read both books and now you are an expert on Scots Peerage Law but don't know anything about Assumptions-at-Law. Totally unbelievable, this is the type of nonsense that caused me not to engage in discussions earlier. If you are going to write as a authority on Scots Peerage Law learn the subject matter FIRST. I am not going to teach a class here for people who jump to conclusions with hardly a elementary understanding of a very complicated subject matter, yet manage to insult me and defame me in the process with their "expert" commentary. Re: "1 Notes...." it is a matter of history and Scots Peerage Law that Scottish peers may surrender their titles to the Sovereign for a resettlement-by-letters patent to make any number of changes including changes in descent, this has continued into recent times (20th Century). This is an example of the writer (fitzw) trying to be an expert based on very limited reading and knowledge. Re: "2....When I first wrote the Queen almost 20 years ago, I claimed the titles by right of descent and requested a resettlement-by-letters patent as a likely way to end the dormancy. I passed muster with the Lord Lyon (who I knew personally), and then the Queen wanted the Canadians to sign off on the matter, which after a lot of senior level nonsense they finally did, then the matter went to the old Scottish Office (this was prior to the establishment of the modern Scottish Parliament) where two senior civil servants, whose job it was to run the ambulance and fire services in Scotland, handled it. They had no knowledge of Scots Peerage Law, or of resettlements and eventually grew tired of this overseas expert telling them their job and recommended against a resettlement to end the dormancy citing English Peerage Law rules not Scots Peerage Law; after trying for some time to overturn this stupidity I simply used the most common procedure used under Scots Peerage Law to take up a title, an assumption (or more formally an Assumption-at-Law). As the House of Lords had not yet been "reformed" the Government was free to challenge me before the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords. No challenge was ever made, and no challenge was ever found to be correct. After the House of Lords was "reformed" and hereditary peers could not automatically sit in the House (provided they held UK or Commonwealth citizenship/etc.) the issue could not go before the Committee for Privileges as I am not a citizen of the UK and not eligible to be enrolled on the Roll Of Peers Wishing To Stand For By-election to one of the 92 hereditary voting seats in the House of Lords (now those so enrolled must be UK citizens). The Royal Warrant to establish the Roll of the Peerage was established to allow for persons to be able to prove their claim to peerages where the Committee for Privileges might not have jurisdiction. However, the actual wording of the Royal Warrant included all members of the peerage at the time the Warrant was issued and under Scots Peerage Law a unchallenged peer via an assumption is a peer until and unless successfully challenged in a proper legal venue. ALL SCOTS PEERS HAVE MANY MANY UNCHALLENGED ASSUMPTIONS IN THEIR TITLES BACKGROUND. The Scots were a reasonable and tightfisted people, they (unlike the English) would not allow a system that required the hiring of expensive lawyers simply to take up their families titles. They used assumptions and were subject to being challenged before the old Scots Parliament, or at a later date when voting for Scots Representative Peers, or more recently (20th Century; and sometimes even before this in rare cases) before the Committee for Privileges. Re: (3 & 4) That is correct. The right to vote the clerks had to accept...however, the other peers could challenge the right of the peer to vote. The voting at the representative election did not "effect" or "not effect" the quality of the claim to vote, the peer could still be challenged later. Re: "On 24 July ...." the information contained in the article was NOT a good reflection of my claim or the circumstances. If you have ever given a press interview on a complicated issue you will know that your chances of having a reporter explain matters correctly are doubtful even if he/she is well intentioned. From the very beginning my claim included first the claim-by-right (of succession). I was and am the senior male in Clan Alexander. Further, I did hold two feudal baronies and I now just hold one (unless you count the several in Canada, but that is a complex bit of early Canadian history). Re: "Since it has ..." again, the writer is speaking on matters that he knows very very little about. My ownership or lack thereof over Greenan Castle was not the basis for my claim to the Earldom/etc. It is simply too bad that the writer jumped to the conclusion that he did, and was so unprincipled as to defame me in the process. Since he is not privy to the large volume of material in my claim he should not be making such statements for publication. Re: "The same article...." I have known Elizabeth Roads for almost 20 years, her comments to a reporter (July 1999 article) that ran her up were limited to old request to settle the dormancy via a resettlement (which I have commented on above), not to the later Assumption which took place in August 1999. A "slight oversight" on the writer's part that makes all the difference. Re: "There is a lack....." sorry to have to inform you of this but I submitted several hundred years of genealogical evidence to the government in the long process of my claim. Again, the writer makes a profound statement on my case without knowing the facts and is totally wrong. This is shameful and it is shameful that this site allows such trash to be published. Re: "Tim Stirling...." this is a form of address that one finds used between peers but rarely otherwise. The Roll has not been fully published yet, to my current knowledge.(The Roll of the Peerage can be found now on the website of the College of Arms, London. Dec 2010. fitzw) One reason that I did not want to go into too many details on this site is that I have given considerable evidence to the Scotland Yard team investigating the cash-for-peerages scandal. You see, after I assumed the titles I was allowed to sit as the Earl of Stirling in the Peers Gallery on the floor of the House of Lords. But then I began asking for a resettlement-by-letters patent to end the rules of male only succession to my titles/great offices -of-state. This was totally different that the first request for a resettlement to end the dormancy. The second request was made as Earl of Stirling and was made to end the sexist rules. My wife died young of ovarian cancer and I have not remarried and we had no children. My younger sister has children but our even younger brother is unmarried and has no direct heirs. I offered to take dual citizenship and to sit in the House of Lords as a Labour working peer. A resettlement-by-letters patent "has the effect of a new grant" and the rule in the "reformed" House of Lords is that hereditary peers of the first creation are also entitled to a new life peerage (a life barony) so that they might sit and vote in the Lords. This caused all types of problems for me as I make it clear that I would not "donate" anything to the Labour Party. This was at a time when the Blair government was only giving life peerages to those who had "donated" over one million pounds. The matter became entangled in the human rights aspect of my request for a resettlement and I have very substantial civil claims against some very senior people in the government on the matter of human rights for not allowing (to this point in time) a resettlement to end the sexist male only rules. There is still a limit to what I can say about this, but I had a nice long conversation with Assistant Commissioner John Yates himself as well as several other conversations with his detectives. I simply would not allow certain very senior people in the government to bully me into "donating" a massive sum to avoid problems. I have won and now these same people are involved in a tragic and well publicized scandal (cash-for-peerages). Both fitzw and UTC seem to be very prone to set themselves up as rather nasty experts on matters that they know very little about. Shameful! I note that they did not follow up on my comment to "PROVE your position". Earl of Stirling

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) ~~ [reply]

The House of Lords does not confirm these things now, as I am not eligible (due to lack of UK citizenship) to be on the Roll Of Peers Who Wish To Stand For By-election. I would be very interested to see any formal document from the government that says that I am NOT the Earl. Actually, I agree that I do not need to explain my claim to you. It is just that several people on this site have written untrue and derogative comments about myself and my successful claim. I spend a lot of time on-line and one day I simply checked out the entry for Earl of Stirling and not seeing it updated to include myself I did update it ~ that began the nasty line of comments from persons claiming to know what they were talking about, when in reality they were clueless. Earl of Stirling

Please see the site www.electricscotland.com/webclans/chiefs.htm Earl of Stirling. This link appears to be unavailable, fitzw.

As a decidely amateur historian and student of the peerage, the notion of "assumption at law" seems rather remarkable to me. I'd like to understand the process a bit better; can you recommend any works of reference or law cases that describe it. Choess 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I made a specific recommendation I ended up having things taken out of context. I recommend that you review the Lyon Court cases on peerages, baronets, chiefs over the last several hundred years and review various books on Scottish peerage law ~ you will find many examples. Earl of Stirling

Put simply...

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)[reply]

You total jerk. You don't know what my position was/is or what I am thinking. And, as usual on this site, my successful claim and the law pertaining to same has NOT been presented in anything that can remotely be called truthful. Earl of Stirling

You are correct, ABC. The ONLY British title that can be bought and sold is the Feudal Barony, which does not confer peerage and is purely an honorific associated with a proerty. Another thing is that the title cannot be shared - these people who sell square meters of Scotland and state that it confers nobility are lying. There can be only one feudal baron x under scots law. You are incorrect, however, in saying that a Feudal Baron cannot be called Lord. The style of address 'Lord' can be used in reference to any kind of Baron, Scottish or otherwise. Example, James Ivory of Brewlands is a feudal baron [the title goes with the Brewlands estate], but is still addressed as Lord Ivory. Psidogretro 15:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABC is incorrect about Scots Peerage and Scots Clan chiefships. The comments made in this entry are totally wrong and totally outrageous. As I said, he/she does not know what I was thinking. Or anything about me or it appears the laws governing pre-Union Scots Peerages or ancient Scottish clan chiefships. I never "misunderstood that....", what utter gall to make such a statement! Grow up and get a life! Psidogretro's comments that a feudal baron can be called "Lord" is not one that most modern authorities would agree with, however, there is some historical evidence that he is correct or that the usage was correct hundreds of years ago. Earl of Stirling

Timothy Alexander

We are all overlooking something here.

Mr Alexander is a US citizen, yes? Therefore whether or not he is the direct male successor to the Earl of Stirling title [which in itself if highly unlikely] is totally irrelevant. This is because as a US Citizen he doesn't have the right to titles, honorifics etc of ANY kind [save those issued by the US govt itself - Presidential Medal of Freedom etc].

If Mr Alexander is the heir to the Earldom, he most certainly cannot be the actual Earl unless he rejects his US citizenship. Psidogretro 15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What law are you thinking of here? The Titles of Nobility amendment? See the article if so. Mhardcastle 08:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also William Jennings Capell, heir presumptive to the Earldom of Essex. Choess 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC

As noted, this is not true. Americans have on several occasions inherited peerage titles. john k 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, people contributing to this site do not understand Scots Peerage Law or have full access to my claim, nor do they understand that I do have recognition as Earl of Stirling. As to American law, there is no problem with my claiming the titles by right of succession provided that I do not hold a office of trust in the United States at the time I received the titles. People, grow up. Citing a couple of on-line entries is not proof of anything. Earl of Stirling

Once again, we are back at it. What is needed per verifiability is a published, reputable source which indicates that Timothy Alexander is broadly recognized as the Earl of Sterling. This is not an assessment of the truth of your claim; Wikipedia works on verifiable sources, not truth. You have several sources mentioned above which seem dubious of your claim. Sources which indicate their legal reasoning is incorrect are not sufficient, unless the sources also explicitly affirm that Timothy Alexander is the Earl. Failing that, I can't see how we could include you, except to describe you as the cited publications have done. --TeaDrinker 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that the comments posted on my case by people claiming to know what they were talking about but were totally incorrect get posted. But somehow I have to provide you with the Roll of the Peerage that has not yet been published; and documents, in my possession, are not acceptable as proof even if they are from the Palace. Strange indeed.

We have rules about original research. You're going to have to get this stuff published in a reputable reference source before this (disreputable, natch) reference source will include it. john k 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=171132007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs).

I see your comment, but don't see how that supports your case any more than comments left here. Bulletin boards (which is a close analogy to the comments section of a news article) do not fit under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Sorry, I don't see that supporting your case. --TeaDrinker 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the list of Scottish Clan Chiefs at http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/chiefs.htm which does list me as Earl of Stirling and Chief of Clan Alexander, and it was written by the Secretary to the Standing Council of Chiefs. Earl of Stirling

Thanks for the reference. I must say I am somewhat confused, since the official website of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs [1] does not list clan Alexander, and it is not clear what position they are in to recognize a claim of Earlship. In light of articles such as this it can at the very least be said the claim is widely disputed, and if you were included in the article, the fact that a dispute about the claim would have to be included. --TeaDrinker 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: Neither electricscotland nor he SCSC has the power to make any determination as to who is or is not a Chief. So they can say what they like it doesn't have force. I posted it to tea drinkers page but others here who are no already bored by this issue can read the ECHR ruling on the legality of female/male succession rules at CIERVA OSORIO DE MOSCOVO - Spain (N° 41127/98) [2]. So 'overturning' the sexist rules doesn't look like it will be going very far. So we're back where we started. You have not provided any evidence nor has anyone else of the recognition by CfP/the Lord Chancellor or upon the roll of the peerage, likewise with the roll of the baronetcy and with the Lord Lyon in so far as his power may extend. Without such sources this entry isn't going to change. Alci12 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I notice that you (Alci12) hide behind your "handle" and fail to identify yourself or anything about yourself or your claim to expertise. Your comments that "overturning the sexist rules doesn't look like it will be going very far" is a typical comment on these pages. One based on a limited understanding of the legal issues and legal options involved ~ but that doesn't stop you from making outlandish comments. Your entry, which was made after I wrote my entry just below this (but not shown to be posted after the below comments), now demands "evidence" (which I have from the Palace but no one will accept) instead of a published source (which I have provided). The 'target' seems to keep changing (see comment below as to jumping through hoops ....). Earl of Stirling[reply]

The article which I gave reference to WAS WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE STANDING COUNCIL OF SCOTTISH CHIEFS and written in his official capacity! Once again, it is lack of specific knowledge that is the problem, that plus a strong tenancy to give great weight to junk sites (the Baronage) as opposed to much more important sources. Clan Alexander was a "broken clan", that is one without a Chief, until I reclaimed the chiefship. I have not gone to the Lyon Court for a grant of Arms or a grant of tartan as the chief and will not do so until the fight over ending the sexist rules of male only succession is won ~ mostly because I don't want to have to pay the expensive fees and legal bills twice. Hence I have not petitioned to join the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs and will not do so until the final battle is over on the issue of male only rights of succession. There are any number of reasons why various chiefs and clans are not included in the official website, however, the fact that the others ARE included in the electricscotland site and done so by the Secretary of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs is official. You are splitting hairs here. As to the mention of the article by the Baronage, the owner is connected to a person who I brought legal action against years ago ~ his comments on me are defamatory and just plain wrong, however I don't believe that he is worth bringing suit against. I strongly object to your mentioning of his slander and I strongly object to any inclusion of same in any entry in Wikipedia or to his slander forming any part of the decision to include or not include me in the list of Earls of Stirling. After all that I have written, and after the documents from the Palace that I have offered to provide, and after the electricscotland link to still fall back on this old scandal is outrageous! What I have seen of Whikipedia is a group of people who act as experts in matters that they are not fully competent in, and after being called on same, utilize very dubious and defamatory material to support prior conclusions that are shameful. If you support the slander as written in the Baronage, and widely spread same you and Wikipedia slander me ~ one would think that you would first make darn sure that the article in the Baronage is free from slander and that what is said about my alleged contact is correct. Instead you place me on notice that you are using this in the decision making process. By the way, where did you get the term "Earlship"? You are still referring to "claim". The legal fact is that I am unchallenged in any legal venue as Earl of Stirling, after my assumption, and with the wording used in the Royal Warrant used to establish the Roll of the Peerage I cannot be so challenged in my lifetime. Under Scots Peerage Law, and tradition, and history, I am the Earl. This is a legal fact and you and Wikipedia are not a court of law; if you make up your own rules that are outside of the real rules of law, you open yourselves up to legal problems as well as to legitimate claims of fraud and poor editing; it is not up to me to educate you, and educate you, and educate you, on what is or is not Scots Peerage Law (and then have some nut misquote and take out of context what I have supplied). Further, I would think that the Standing Council would be in a much better place to recognize my title than you or Wikipedia, and their Secretary did refer to me as Earl of Stirling not Timothy Alexander. I feel that I am owed a rather large apology for the way that I have been treated by Wikipedia but I don't expect to get any apology. I am going to insist on holding your feet to the fire on this matter, as the cash-for-peerage investigation is coming to an end I have more freedom to act now. Do not continue to slander and defame me with the Baronage "article" (from a very minor site but repleted in the much wider read Wikipedia). Do not continue to throw up legal nonsense and outright false statements as to what constitutes the law as a reason not to include me in the list of Earls of Stirling. Do be aware that this continuing problem is causing me material damage. Do not create problems based on lies and misstatements as to what the law is, and to my rights to my titles, and expect me to jump through one hoop after another, facing yet more misstatements/etc. after each jump. End this problem now. Thank you. Earl of Stirling

I apologize for my misuse of terminology; "Earlship," while occuring in the OED, does appear antiquated. With regard to your insistance that you are an Earl, the only verifiable source you have provided indicates only the Chief of the Clan Alexander is the Earl of Stirling, not that the Earl of Stirling is Timothy Alexander. The source, as well, has not been established as reliable (in that, the it is not clear what the listing represents). There are, however, several other sources which seem to indicate you are not generally recognized as an Earl. While Wikipedia is very careful about defamatory claims in biographies, we can not ignore anything critical of a subject which s/he claims is untrue, when the material is well-sourced. My view remains that there is ample evidence that Timothy Alexander's claim of being an Earl is controvesial, and that controversy should be reported if the claim is notable enough to enter the article (I am not convinced of the latter). --TeaDrinker 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "..not that the Earl of Stirling is Timothy Alexander", of course it does go on to give my email address and my home address (which can easily be verified). Re: "it is not clear what the listing represents"...it is most clear, it represents that the Chief of Clan Alexander is the Earl of Stirling ~ me! You again insist on referring to information that is false, defamatory, and slanderous. I am tired of this game. Down the road a bit my attorneys will obtain the names and address of those on this system who have violated my rights and we will respond with a sizable lawsuit ~ and you can ban me for saying this but it will happen and you "experts" will have your day in court. Earl of Stirling

Note: As you're well aware, legal proceedings are to be kept off the wiki; any further mention of legal action will result in an immediate block, thereby allowing you to pursue said action (discussion is currently underway about whether you should be blocked in any case, as you seem to be aware of this policy, based on prior incidents). While you are of course free to pursue legal recourse, I must ask that you refrain from editing the wiki while considering or embroiled in legal action, in accordance with policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Blocked for six months, following (and pending any further) discussion at the admin noticeboard. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to laugh at this nugget that Mr. Alexander wrote: "The article which I gave reference to WAS WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE STANDING COUNCIL OF SCOTTISH CHIEFS and written in his official capacity!" The soi disant "Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs" is a self-appointed group with zero legal authority over anything.Bricology (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]