Talk:Lauder baronets

No Idington baronetcy

There was never ever a Lauder of Idingtoun baronetcy. Sir John acquired the Idington estate, it is true. But both baronetcy patents were in the name 'of Fountainhall'. Where the confusion may arise with those less familiar with this family &c., is that the original patent had a special remainder to the eldest son of his third marriage, who was George Lauder, later designated 'of Idingtoun' (he had the Idingtoun estate settled upon him as it had originally belonged to his maternal grandfather). Indeed, the huge carry on over this baronetcy is well recorded (notably in The Grange of St.Giles by J.Stewart Smith, Edinburgh, 1898), as George insisted that he was the rightful baronet and called himself Sir George Lauder of Idingtoun (which landed designation he had a right to), Baronet (which was cancelled), until he committed suicide in 1700. Indeed, the Retour of 1705 actually refers to him as Sir George Lauder. Regards. David Lauder 08:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Most interesting. Thank you. I will write to Rayment and see what his source was. Maybe User:Proteus has a view. - Kittybrewster 09:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that the Oxford English Dictionary gives "annul" as meaning "cancel" so we may be splitting hairs here. Personally, as 'annulled' is usually reserved for other things (marriages), I would have preferred the 'cancelled'. David Lauder 10:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends by what instrument it was cancelled I think. The difference between annulled and divorced is huge of course. - Kittybrewster 10:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In Scotland, a retour is a jury's decision as to who is the rightful heir. Which suggests to me that the matter was aired in court 1705. I am wondering if that is correct and when it was aired in Parliament. It sounds to me that there were two claimants when the 1st Bart died, namely George, son of 3rd wife and Lord F, son of the 2nd wife. And that Lord F won the battle, though whether in Parliament or in a court, I do not know. Did George have descendants? - Kittybrewster 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of what a Retour is. I'd have to dig out my references again. Lord Fountainhall had the matter of the 1st Patent aired in the Scottish Parliament (he was a M.P.) arguing that it had been drawn up under duress (applied by his step-mother and her agents) to wrongly exclude him as his father's rightful son and heir. (It must be remembered that the 1st baronet was aged 93 in 1688!). It went to court, Lord Fountainhall bringing the action against his step-mother and others for libel against him, his mother, etc. Needless to say he won the action, and the argument in Parliament, which led to instructions for a new patent to be drawn up. I cannot recall which came first, court or parliament, but I think it was parliament as the new patent was sealed in 1690. Whilst George Lauder of Idingtoun refused to accept any of these decisions, the fact remains that the new patent was sealed before the 1st baronet died, and in any case parliament had 'reduced' the destination of the first patent ordering it to be cancelled once the 1st baronet died. George committed suicide after shooting someone dead and was unmarried. He had two brothers: Archibald was a navy surgeon and he died in 1704. The other, David, was appointed by the courts as factor on the Idingtoun estate following George's death. He seems to have vanished. If there are any descendants they would have to be his. David Lauder 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely "Parliament" was not the Sovereign power and did not have the authority to reduce the first creation? - Kittybrewster 22:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you an I agree that there is only one sovereign power and its should not be parliament. However, you need to place yourself in the delicate atmosphere of 1690. Whatever, Fountainhall raised it in parliament and that was the decision. I'll try and locate the reference in the Acts the next time I am at the National Library. David Lauder 09:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I have not returned here. Time and motion are the problems! Further to this discussion I refer editors to the section in James Cunningham, 7th Earl of Glencairn where he brought an Action of Reduction in precedence matters. I assume this is the same as the Action of Reduction Lord Fountainhall successfully brought against his father's first Letters Patent. David Lauder 18:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Iddingtoun & Fountainhall: clarification

J.Stewart-Smith (The Grange of St. Giles, Edinburgh, 1898) had sight of the original patent (a picture of it is displayed) of 1688 which is therein stated to be the Baronetcy of Fountainhall. The destination was later changed and a new Patent issued to reflect that, but the title of the Baronetcy was not affected. This seems to be confirmed by the 1st Baronet's connexions with the lands concerned:

He purchased, on (June 10, 1681) the lands of Woodhead and Templehall, which along with others in Haddingtonshire and Edinburghshire, were erected by Crown charter into the feudal barony of Fountainhall on August 13, 1681. (Refer: The National Archives of Scotland: GD41/153). He later purchased the lands of Idingtoun (now Edington) near Chirnside, Berwickshire, from his third father-in-law, George Ramsay of Idingtoun. In the Books of Council & Session at the National Archives of Scotland (ref: RD3/78, p.121) is a long Deed, signed on the 1st July and August 20, 1690, entered into between George Ramsay of Idingtoun and his son and heir William, to sell irredeemably the lands and barony of Idingtoune [Edington] in Berwickshire, to Sir John Lauder, 1st Baronet of Fountainhall, commonly referred to as Bailie Lauder. David Lauder 08:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lauder baronets. 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/20070928084029/http://janeelix.com/piers/index.cgi?Context=Bio&Action=bio to http://janeelix.com/piers/index.cgi?Context=Bio&Action=bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)