Talk:False titles of nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Past Political Scandals and Controversies (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Past Political Scandals and ControversiesWikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and ControversiesTemplate:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and ControversiesPast Political Scandals and Controversies articles

I become dull

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)[reply]

The Lord Lyon can grant Arms in Scotland. He cannot and does not stop people using logos and other devices that look as if they are "Arms". Also Lord Lyon only has jurisdiction in Scotland. His role nowadays is ceremonial, not judicial. If it were illegal to use such "Arms", he would prosecute. He does not and has not done so for hundreds of years. This is simply one of those mad old unenforced and unenforceable laws like the law of Blasphemy.

Much of the rest of this page is also biased, incorrect, sloppy and just plain misleading and wrong. Most of the so called Noble Titles discussed on the page are not Noble Titles at all. Their sale is entirely legal - if meaningless - in most jurisdictions.

The law preventing the sale of "Honours" in the UK was enacted in 1925 to prevent the sale of a dignity or title of honour and has never been used. Even when the last UK government blatantly sold titles it was not used. Lots of vendors in the UK sell "titles" and gave done for decades. This is simply not an illegal activity and no prosecutions have ever been brought or ever can be brought unless the law is changed.

The authors of this page clearly have a chip on their shoulders and would like some part of this business to be illegal. But it isn't and this page is just propaganda without substance. Theblackbadger (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And Yopie confirms (again) that try as these Trolls may, they can come up with absolutely no instance of a prosecution by Lord Lyon or anyone else on grounds of displaying unregistered arms in Scotland. The example here was in fact misuse of someone else's registered arms, and STILL there was no attempt at prosecution by Lord Lyon. Also Lord Lyon's web site is scarcely impartial evidence for anything. If I were Lord Lyon, I would be worried about redundancies, so you would expect him to try to talk his role up a bit.

These are old dead laws and customs and Wikipedia members with a personal axe to grind are introducing false information. Wikipedia misused for private (and incorrect) propaganda. Theblackbadger (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link gone

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)[reply]

American vs European views

It would be interesting to have different views on this. I would think that the main clients of these 'name change instructions' are Americans. To us titles such as 'Lord, Baron' etc have no meaning, they are more or less a novelty. It's not illegal in anyway here as long as you're not committing fraud of some sort you're good.

The other thing is why is this article called 'False' titles? They are real, as real as the name printed on a bill or credit card, no?

Who cares if they Queen did the name change or you did, what does it matter? It's 2011, really.

Somewhat misleading

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)[reply]

Revert

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)

Redirected to an article that covers the subject correctly. Millennium Sentinel 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

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)[reply]

No, because it is more than one title, therefore, titles is correct. - S Masters (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Certain editors who have contributed to this page have decided to make personal attacks on me with out any legal foundation to do so, you have also added weblinks which also contain personal attacks on me, which is not allowed under the rules of wikipedia this section will be removed or editored in due course, wikipedia users and editors, Wikipedia was set up for the sharing of knowledge and information to the world, not for which this page is being used for to make personal attacks on idividuals! therefore I will edit this section in order to bring it in line with wikipedia's rules and the relevant information listed for this page. --KD 11:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlvondeutschland (talk • contribs)

Hello Karl (if I may refer to you as that). It is nice for you to stop by. What are your specific objections to the section that references you? You are clearly a public figure and your story is a matter of public record. No one has made up anything like an attack on you here at Wikipedia. Your story is simply being recounted here as historical fact -- hence the various included references in the article. Your specific objections seem to be:

* you object to having your own web sites listed as references

* you object to having your false title labeled as a false title

Are these your specific objections? Why do you object to having your own web sites listed as they are in the public domain already? And with regard to your false title, how is your title anything but false? It is a noble title (as your web sites so eloquently show) and it is false in that it has no validity in either the present or the past. What is not false about your title, Your Imperial and Royal Highness? I think that it is important to get the opinions of the other major experts on these matters (including for example Yopie and DWC LR). If the majority of experts on this matter say that your title is not false, I will certainly go along with them. But the articles referenced from The Independent ("The Holy Roman Emperor is alive and well and living in Teddington") and The Guardian ("The man who would be king") clearly show (through an interview with you yourself) that you just made up your title. How is your title not false? The various references are included in this Wiki article so that readers can determine for themselves what your story is all about by going to the original sources. I very much welcome a discussion of these matters and the opinions of others. Oh, also Karl, please sign your comments using the Wiki signing mechanism of using a dash character followed by four tilde characters. That will prevent the "unsigned-comment" robot from having to sign your comments for you. - L.Smithfield (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets clarify this section, firstly it has the heading !Self-Styled Titles! so why do you insist on using the term and word false in this section this is misleading to the reader, you do not use this term with your listing about self-style orders why? so I have editored this by replacing false with the title heading of self-styled, the term false and self-styled have two very different meanings, example the Grand Duchess Maria of Russia is termed as being self-styled, so that in context does not mean self-styled is false, so I would say this subject should not be listed upon this page but listed on a seperate page with the title heading SELF-STYLED TITLES, whereas you have listed a web board which attacks myself without legal basis to do so, this weblink is against wikipedia rules and as such may not be used for reference links, please read rules on linking personal attack links, you should know this, whereas you and others named by you, have used wikipedia on many occasions to make personal attacks on me, this section is being used again by you and others, to attack me, the question should be asked why am I the only person mentioned concerning this page? you of course have your own agenda and history which I have already listed above, I have assumed this rank and do not hold it as a false Title, one may add a self-assumed Title or having usurped the Title in question, but not false as I have not impersonated any person living or dead, whereas concerning the above aforementioned experts, I have never heard of them, and Im sure Kennedy, Mosley, Williamson and others have never heard of them either! after studying the subject of the First Reich for more than 26 years, I would not call myself an expert but of course they are entitled to their own self-styled status thereon, it should be remembered that writing an artical for wikipedia does not make one an expert, I have not given you permission to use my copyrighted websites as links on any part of wikipedia, under the rules of wikipedia, I as the owner have the right to have them removed when they are being used for personal attacks thereon, and so to clear up some confusion on your part and others, I do not own, run or have fomal connection to following websites being www.almanachdegotha.org or www.nobilityregister.com as such I have removed these links as they are not coonnected to the subject matter concerned therein, so in future please remove your linking problem with these websites or show their legal ownership details, as your statments concerning the ownership of these websites are false! the truth is that you have taken it upon yourself through your own personal reasons to attack me, but of course it is quite strange how the only references you seem to list which are 7 out of the 17 listed just for the 6th and last section self-styled Titles of the False Titles of Nobility page (but of course not a personal attack?) are five websites, two newspaper articals and a personal attacking web board, hardly a legal basis of facts, the aforementioned so called web facts can be complied by anyone on the net, not a particular brainstorm on your part I might add, but puting all the above aside this artical is not about me, and as such should not be used and abused by others to attack me personally without due legal basis to do so. PS - It is quite strange how you and others require legal factual details ie legal court or historical statments through governments concerning the Title I have claimed but you dont seem to show any legal factual details yourself for your own arguement concerning the above subject, I have never asked any body to grant me formal recognition, that is up to the individuals concerned ie yourself and others, if you disagree with my claim that is up to you, but name calling and making false statments concerning who I am or what I am is wrong and using wikipedia to give voice to your own views is not what this wonderful website was set up for, in future use the vile web boards were individuals can attack others, behind their computer screens without any legal redress on the part of the persons they are attacking.KD 15:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding --KD 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC) comment added by Karlvondeutschland (talk • contribs)

My choice of the subsection title "self-styled titles" was simply to differentiate your type of assumed title from those already discussed in the article (such as in Britain or Italy). I am certainly open to renaming that subsection heading to something else: like maybe "Supranational titles" or "Unrecognized titles" if that seems better to you. With regard to your title being "self-styled" rather than simply "false," are you not trying to assume a title to the old Holy Roman Empire or to the old German Empire? Are not those titles associated more with the Hapsburgs or the Hohenzollerns rather than with you? Your title is also not recognized by any national or international organization or association. As to whether there should be a different Wiki article that discusses "self-styled" titles rather than "false" titles, that should be a matter for a larger consensus of contributing editors to decide. For myself, I do not really see a distinction between a "self-styled" title and a "false" one. I have never really seen in any relevant literature on the topic any distinction made between the two. In the example of HIH Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of all the Russias (Curatrix of the Imperial Throne of the Russian Empire) that you mention, she is widely and totally recognized as being both a member of the imperial Romanov house and a claimant to the imperial throne of Russia -- even by the government of Russia today as evidenced by her recent court cases with the Russian government and its acknowledgment of her claim (even without accepting it) to the imperial throne. Also, the Orthodox Church of Russia also acknowledges (and essentially accepts) her claim to the imperial throne, as evidenced by the recent funeral service on the occasion of the death of her mother, The de-jure Dowager Empress of the Russian Empire Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Leonida Georgievna. You have nothing like the national, international, and ecclesiastical recognition that HIH Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna has! This is indeed the primary difference between her title and yours. There is no acknowledgment nor acceptance of your title except by the people you have either recruited or who have accepted titles or honors from you.

In another matter, you state "I have not given you permission to use my copyrighted websites as links on any part of wikipedia, ..." and also "I as the owner ..." Then you further state "I do not own, run or have fomal connection to following websites being www.almanachdegotha.org or www.nobilityregister.com ..." Well, which is it? If you do not own them, then you should not object to them being included as references to support your claim to your title. Also, even if you did own those web sites, are they not purposefully put into the public domain -- by you? Why would you not want links to those sites, so that those visiting can see that you are listed on those sites with your title?

In still another matter, why do you object to the inclusion of the external references:

* The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty

* The International Commission for Orders of Chivalry

Surely these web sites are not owned by you, so what is your objection? You are not even mentioned in either of those web sites. So again, what is the objection? Even if you were mentioned, you are an international public person, are you not? Those web sites provide opinions on who is entitled to what sort of titles and therefore they are very relevant to the present Wiki article.

Finally, if there are others with assumed (false) titles such as yourself, that are also as internationally known as you are, I would most certainly be interested in knowing who they are and the URLs to their respective web sites. I would certainly add those other people as examples of those with false assumed titles to this present Wiki article if I knew who they were (and preferably also had URLs to their web sites).

Let's wait for some additional opinions on this matter of "false" versus "self-styled" titles before splitting off additional Wiki articles. I think that is a reasonable course of action to follow. And Karl, thanks very much for your input on this present Wiki article. I think that your input will actually serve to make this a better article in the end. -L.Smithfield (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification of the identity of comments made here

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)[reply]

PDF article in external links

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:BLP concern about named individuals in False titles of nobility#Self-styled titles

I don't see enough sourcing for the claims made about Karl von Deutschland in the Self-styled titles section. I also wonder if 'false titles' is the most neutral way of referring to these designations. The word 'false', when used by lawyers, seems to be a cousin to 'fraud', which is not a good thing for Wikipedia to be asserting about individuals. If the names of specific people were taken out of that section, there would be very little left, so I suggest removing that section from the article. British newspapers have reported on companies that propose to grant titles to people, but there has to be a more neutral way of summarizing what these papers have found. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concern. I trimmed some of the more glaring material, but I agree that it's still unsatisfactory. Unless there are other comments, I would be willing to attempt to prune and re-write it further.--Kubigula (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question makes only three main points (all using Prince Karl as an example). These are:

1) people assume completely fabricated (false) titles, and in the case of Karl in particular he also claims to be the heir to the imperial throne of the HRE

2) some people who assume false titles sometimes sell or, in the case of Prince Karl, give away as a gift false titles to others

3) often people who assume false titles create websites or organizations to support the illusion that their titles are somehow legitimate

I think that all three of these points in the section are substantially supported by the references to the external sources. But I do not think that the real issue here is whether the points in the section are properly supported by external sources (I think that they are here) but rather about whether Wikipedia wants to bring attention to this activity as being "false" or perhaps construed as being "fraudulent" where a living person is used as an example, as EdJohnston (talk) first pointed out above. I think that the eventual solution to this problem is to replace this section entirely with one or more sections that discuss these sorts of behaviors surrounding assumed false titles, but with text that describes the behaviors in the abstract without mentioning any individual people at all -- and particularly no living people. But this could just be a future expansion of this entire Wiki article, since I think the present article does not really currently do justice to this large (and growing) topic. Until such a replacement section or expansion text can be created, my suggestion is to remove this section entirely from the present Wiki article. Like with most Wiki articles, there is no particular or pressing rush to expand them; but in the present case there is some genuine immediate concern about removing references to living persons. So I think that removal of the present section is indeed a reasonable course of action. In a related matter, I think that perhaps consideration should also be given to the idea that the title of the whole Wiki article be changed to "Self-styled titles of nobility." This was somewhat indirectly suggested by Prince Karl and may have merit in conjunction with the idea that Wikipedia does not want to be in the business of saying that these various (whatever) titles are actually "false." A self-styled title is indeed false (and the selling of false titles considered legally fraudulent) as far as I and everyone else knowledgeable on these matters is concerned, but this does not have to be stated in any Wikipedia articles; rather that determination can be left to the readers. I am still interested, however, in hearing the opinions of other editors who have contributed to these sorts of social topics. -L.Smithfield (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously a problem with living people, although Prince Karl is 100% fake. I defiantly believe the section “Self styled titles” is relevant and could be expanded to include other cases but obviously this depends on finding references. Guy Stair Sainty has written about some [1]. Sainty lists various degrees of “Fantasy royalty”: Usurpers, Imposters, Illegal claimants, fantasists. Personally I think the section should look at the fantasists (such as Prince Karl and the guy calling himself the King of Isle of Man [2] who I remember edited his article here till he was outed it got deleted, and there are a fair few news articles on him I believe) rather than cases you sometimes get in legitimate non reigning Royal families where both sides have valid points but there is a dispute over the succession. You could in theory lay the tag “self styled” at the claimant you don’t believe to be legitimate. - dwc lr (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your input here. You raise a few points to consider. What is your opinion on changing the title of this whole article to "Self-styled titles"? Also, within the text of the article, we would refer to these people as "self-styled" rather than "false." Although these fantasists (like Prince Karl and others) are indeed 100% fake, changing the title of the whole article would serve to lessen the appearance that Wikipedia is in any way trying to judge these people as being "bad" (what might be concluded from calling them "false"). Even Prince Karl himself seemed more comfortable with calling his title "self-styled" rather than "false." If he is happy with that, then just maybe that approach could fly with others like him as well. I hate to make it look like we are catering to or giving in to these people, but obviously they can cause rather continuous editing disruption otherwise. With regard to legitimate cases of claimant disputes (for France, Russia, et cetera), this article would never have touched on them anyway. But, yes, fantasy claimants to real titles might indeed come under the scope of this article. There is still the issue of whether to reference living persons by name at all. Do you think it is within the allowance of Wikipeidia to name living persons in the context of this article at all, even if they are referred to as being "self-styled" rather than being "false"? Because even if we call these people (by name) "self-styled" there may still be WP:BLP concerns with that. -L.Smithfield (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the idea of naming the whole article "Self-styled titles of nobility" is it the case that: although all self-styled titles are false, not all false titles are self-styled? If there are false titles that are not considered self-styled, then the title of the article should either remain as it is or be called something other than "self-styled." If this whole article is to be eventually expanded, some sort of hierarchy or taxonomy of types of titles should be adopted. -L.Smithfield (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to call them 'false titles,' then the use of the term 'false' should be quoted from a reliable source. 'Self-styled' only requires proof that a particular person has claimed to deserve that title. In either case, naming specific individuals should be done only (in my opinion) if the story can't be properly told without mentioning them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don’t mind changing it to “self styled”, it’s difficult to think of something else to describe it as. Regarding naming people I agree with EdJohnston’s view to name them if necessary and it would perhaps be better have a more general section on people who assume the titles; and then describe their activates such as selling titles and so on, so as to avoid BLP stuff. - dwc lr (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here. I just wanted to say that using ones name as an example, such as; "one Lytton Patrick Brown" should be removed unless he gave permission for his name to be used as someone who received a title from Prince Karl. There must be many others who have received titles from Karl, but only one is listed here also with his website. It is a good article otherwise.

Thank you David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalday (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Brown publicized his own elevation to his new title himself (given by Prince Karl) on his website (follow the reference citation in the article). -L.Smithfield (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did but the reference website link is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalday (talk • contribs) 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Our good Count (now actually a Prince since he had been promoted), His Excellency Graf von Bretzenheim, has removed this web site from his hosting company. His domain name (Prince of Bretzenheim) still exists but the web site itself has been removed. Either he stopped paying his web hosting bills or no longer wants people to know that he was made a Count and then a Prince (in turn) by His Imperial and Royal Highness Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland. I will fix the article text to remove the broken reference. Thanks for noticing this. -L.Smithfield (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

royalty-nobility

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The so called International Commission for Royalty and Nobility www.nobility-royalty.com is just a sole website based body with no formal legitimacy whatsoever, to say that it holds any sort of formal recognition is total make believe and of course to say Dr D.E. Goff, has formal involvement with this make believe commission is the under statement of the century as Dr Goff created, owns, runs and funds the website in question, but seems to protend otherwise, he also created, runs and owns this website http://www.phoneynobletitles.com notice the same website plates as the commissions Johnkennedy58 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Artical is being used to attack an individual and promote weblinks

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)[reply]

Quack quack. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titles in general

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Land conservation

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)[reply]

The authors of this page seem to be on a mission. Scottish "Lairds" just enthusiasts who are passionate about Scotland. Members of the "Sealed Knot" don't actually believe they are Roundheads and Cavaliers. Thet jsut like to get into the groove. These "fake titles" cost a few pounds and are entirely harmless. To create a whole page about them seems over the top and one has to wonder what the hidded agenda is. Likening the conservation bodies like Highland Titles and Dunans Castle, who use souvenir land sales to fund their enterprises, to Hitler is just silly. I would suggest just deleting the whole page and concentrate on more useful work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblackbadger (talk • contribs) 06:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Any source for your opinion? --Yopie (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question Yopie is really "Do you have any source for your opinion?" The thrust of this article is that the trade in novelty titles is illegal and immoral. Do you have any evidence for that? There is nothing here to back up that thesis. Clearly you and a few other vocal posters find this whole subject distasteful, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to go for facts, not a venue for internet Trolls to exercise their hobbies. If you want to say that the product that literally dozens of businesses sell both in shops and on reputable sites like Amazon is illegal then you should be prepared to prove it (you cannot. It is not illegal). Linking to other Trolling sites like Fake Titles and Scots Titles is not the same as real evidence. Lord Lyon does not say that the sale of such titles is illegal. Not that his opinion on the subject would carry any weight as his role, such as it is, is simply to issue Scottish Coats of Arms and dress up in funny cloths twice a year. The people who you would need to get an opinion from would be Trading Standards. To link to one very old report in a newspaper does not really cut the mustard. If it did, I could prove that Freddy Starr eats hamsters or that there is a World War II bomber on the moon. I do not personally approve of the sale of cigarettes, but Wikipedia is not the place for me to bang my drum. This page and several others on the same theme appear to have been created for mischievous purposes, are misleading and largely false, and should be removed or seriously pruned.93.187.148.13 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False?

False – or private titles?

In many countries, also in Europe, a man is free to call himself whatever he wants. It is therefore not correct to call these persons' titles 'false'. If a man establishes a private knight order, it is his constitutional right and may, in a legal aspect, hardly be called 'false'.

This article seems to be too anchored in British law, and does not have the required international aspect. I suggest that 'false' is replaced with, be it, 'private' or 'alternative'.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can rename himself as "Pope" or "King", but this don't mean that you are pope or king. If you rename himself "President of United States", you cannot live White house. Understand?--Yopie (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance between this case and your concrete examples seems to be unclear. If I establish a private knight order and give the members titles like duke, count, and baron, it is my constitutional right, completely legal – and therefore not 'false' in a legal definition of this word. I do not know what this has to do with the U.S. President.

You're exactly right, and I was refreshed to see your comments here pertaining to the nature of a 'false title'. I love how the point of "You can create a private club and use whatever names you want for the membership. However, those names/titles/whatever have absolutely no relevance or meaning outside the social club. It is no more than the name of a club membership level." has this apparent double standard. I come from a very direct lineage of the House of Normandy with a surname of de Crepon or Crepon, and wish to make myself symbolic Duke of Normandy of the House of Norman. It's a matter of respect that others would in general, address me by my title. The way my ancestors only not much more than 25 generations ago seized up England and later much more land, and firstly in fact, Normandy itself, had no more 'legit' quality to it than me going through a private corporation, seeing as we're still under corporate law, and having a title generated by them. I think though, just in my opinion, having it done by a company such as elite-titles is more ethical of me, rather than just printing everything out myself. The question though of whether I can really add it to my legal name here in the US? Are titles allowed to be added? I could imagine many wanting to simply add "Doctor" as a first name, or change, I should say. Is that allowed? Perhaps we should cite and review the relevant federal and state codes on this article. Anyway, there are at least two ways of seeing this - one through the lens of the current 'powers that be' and their social club/rules/titles and one from the lens of how liberty is in a democratic republic, ideally, anyway. If someone else became Duke of Normandy, we could communicate with each other to challenge each other's validity... agree to stay in dispute, or even start some kind of new order as was mentioned above. This is the same way politicians as we call them today, gain their power and status... and all institutions. They invent it and claim it and we give it validity collectively and individually. That's my three cents. 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.69.117.221 (talk)

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a private club and use whatever names you want for the membership. However, those names/titles/whatever have absolutely no relevance or meaning outside the social club. It is no more than the name of a club membership level. Usage of the names of nobiliary titles is, at the very least, dishonest and implies that your private club can ennoble people; something that cannot be further from the truth (unless you are a fount of honor) --Kimon^talk 13:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a member of the order a baron, he may, in a country where 'baron' is not a protected official title, call himself a baron (of Order N.N.) everywhere, be it when writing a letter, when making a website, or when publishing a book that he has written. (However, he may not demand that other persons shall recognise this title.) Personally, I am against private knight orders and such, but I would never say that they are 'false'. What is legal or constitutional, is not false.

This article needs a neutral, international aspect. The world is bigger than Great Britain. For example in the Kingdom of Norway, a man may legally call himself a baron. (Many persons will laugh or disagree, but it is still completely legal.)

The word 'false' creates an impression of that such orders are illegal, and should therefore be changed to something more neutral.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is not illegal to call yourself something doesn't mean it's true. If you call yourself the "Minister Plenipotentiary of the Galactic Alliance of Andromeda" it is not illegal. However, it is also false. This holds true in every country. --Kimon^talk 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - These "orders" are illegal in France or Italy.--Yopie (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article is renamed 'Unrecognised titles of nobility', which is far truer and far more neutral and encyclopedic.

E.g. the Order of St. John (a real, royal order) prefers to use words like 'unrecognised'. Source

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you all seem to be missing, other than the fellow who is advocating for these 'false' titles, is the nature of "You can create a private club and use whatever names you want for the membership. However, those names/titles/whatever have absolutely no relevance or meaning outside the social club. It is no more than the name of a club membership level." when you put that in it's proper relative context regarding the established "valid" or "recognized" powers. It's simply by force that these things are declared to be valid, invalid, illegal, legal, virtue, sin... that's the method and people are waking up to it. I invite anyone who is of a family of the original House of Normandy (the 300 year span, approx.) to join my group on facebook by the way, it's under House of Normandy. We can discuss establishing titles, there, whoever wishes to join. We've done more than enough deconstruction , perhaps it's time to start building up clans, orders, tribes again... The only people in the West who can lay claim to this kind of identity today are African Americans, Native Americans and Royal Families of Europe. Oh and Jews. And no, I don't hate Jews but have no reason to respect their right to maintain a tribal bloodline based culture and heritage when mine is laughed at. 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC) House of Normandy

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False titles of nobility → Unrecognised titles of nobility –

I fear that the word 'false' lacks the required objectivity and the required international aspect.

In many countries, also in Europe, a man is free to call himself whatever he wants. It is therefore not correct to call these persons' titles 'false', as this indicates that they are acting illegally. If a man establishes a private knight order, it is his constitutional right and may, in a legal aspect, hardly be called 'false'.

I suggest that the article is renamed 'Unrecognised titles of nobility', which is far truer and far more neutral and encyclopedic. E.g. the Order of St. John prefers to use words like 'unrecognised'. Source

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. People are (in some countries of Europe, but by no means all) free to adopt any name they wish, and therefore this article isn't entitled "False Names of Nobles". So the argument against "self-naming" is a red herring. Nor are "false" and "illegal" synonyms, with reference to titles. Here, false connotes "An example of usage which conveys an impression substantially contrary to prevalent usage", prevalent usage in this case being that titles are customarily borne by those who received (or inherited) them officially -- or receive public acknowledgement of them -- from a verifiable sovereign fount of honour rather than from self-assumption or a source not historically recognised as a fount of honour. Moreover, it certainly is illegal in many jurisdictions to adopt a name or designation with fraudulent intention, i.e. to deliberately mislead others into believing that one is who or what (by conventional understanding) one is not, with the intention of acquiring something from or injuring them. Absent provably harmful intent, such deception is a "hoax" and is widely regarded not merely as an unauthorised self-representation, but as a false one. Finally, the alternative suggested here, "Unrecognised" is a weasel term, implying a distinction without proving a difference: "Unrecognised" by whom? And why is such an adjective warrented? FactStraight (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with FactStraight. While it may be true that "a man is free to call himself whatever he wants", in this context, such titles are not regarded as "noble" in the legal sense of the word. Hence, they are false or fake, with the intention of deceiving others to believe that they are real and of some worth (when they are really worthless). --SMasters (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The source cited in the appeal for the requested move uses the word false in the text of the statement. Further, the terms false title or fake title appear to be what has been most used internationally to refer to these sorts of made-up-fake titles. I think that this article's title should reflect the predominant existing international usage of false or fake. Also the word unrecognized seems to convey a sort of dignity that these sorts of (fake) titles are not entitled to. Titles of nobility can only be granted by current or former nations, or more specifically a fount of honor. Any noble titles that are used without having been first properly granted are therefore not merely unrecognized but rather falsely arrogated or assumed. -L.Smithfield (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In sources is "false", not "unrecognised". --Yopie (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As per FactStraight & L.Smithfield. Is "unrecognized" now a euphemism for "false" or "fraudulent"? Did Bernie Madoff make "unrecognized investment transactions"? --Kimon^talk 19:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia should as far as possible be neutral and nuanced, and unrecognised is indeed less loaded than false, which is nearly associated with words like illegal. Also an international aspect is in accordance with Wikipedia's principles. 1.) Article titles: Non-judgmental descriptive titles Quote: 'Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words'. 2.) Neutral point of view: Words to watch Quote: '(C)ertain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias' 3.) Neutral point of view: Anglo-American focus Quote: '(...) articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries.' P.S. Please note that I am the only one by now who refers to Wikipedia guidelines. The argumentation above consists very much of 'I believe that' and unqualified philosophy. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misleading Titles

Why does the title suggest the article is about "false" titles of nobility, and then go on to list legitimate titles such as Scottish feudal baronies, which are clearly recognised. It appears that someone is pushing an agenda. I'd suggest either changing the title or removing references to titles that are recoginised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.175.119 (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much strange is going on in this article, which obviously needs a clean-up.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of this topic are extremely subjective and probably just plain wrong

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)[reply]

Sealand

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Trolling page

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)[reply]

False Titles of Nobility are popular, legal and often sold for good causes. They are a bit of fun for most people. They are harmless and widespread. They also provoke feelings of extreme revulsion in a very small part of society, particularly amongst those who feel that their own "genuine" titles are diminished. This small group of people will go to extremes to make the practice appear illegal, immoral or worse. They cannot, however give any references beyond the self serving web sites that they create and the occasional newspaper artical that they can persuade a friendly journalist to write. This Wikipedia page is a testament to the lengths they can and do go to to vilify a popular and entirely legal practice, there have been occasions where con men have used a title as a part of their work. This does not make the adoption of a title illegal or justify the vilification of those who choose to take a new title. Why should those who have bought their way into the British House of Lords have all the fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.217.255.131 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page is unsupported and dangerously biased. Suggest you just delete the lot.

This page hopelessly muddles the sale of genuine titles of nobility, illegal in the UK for almost 100 years, the sale of titles which are real, but not noble, like Manorial titles, which are legal, the sale of fake manorial titles (fraudulent) and the sale of novelty titles such as Squire or Laird, which are not regulated and may be freely traded and used. The page implies that the sale of any title is illegal, but no authoratitive references can be given as none exist. References to single issue hate sites give a spurious impression of authority. Likewise old newspaper articles. It would be difficult to create an unbiased page covering the situation in one country. Harder to cover the world. This page attempts to do so and fails badly.109.68.196.142 (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Objective or Neutral

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) This page is a hopeless muddle of misinformation, clearly created by somebody with an agenda. As a matter of fact people can adopt any title and other people can confer any title. To create lists of genuine vs fake, with the implication that some are of more value than others, is insulting and false. It is this page which is a fake and an insult to everything that Wikipedia stands for. 157.157.161.253 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year has gone by and this ridiculous page is still being made available by Wikipedia to the detriment of its reputation for offering objective information. It is a hopeless muddle of fact and fantasy, poorly researched and supported largely by self serving personal and partial sources, such as scots-titles.com and the vague doubts of WRB Cunninghame Graham (who?). If nobody can be bothered to sort this muddle out, please put it out of its misery and just delete it Theblackbadger (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak criticisms

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 [3], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Suggestions for Improving the Article

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)[reply]

What an inspiring review. This ill-named and nasty piece of propaganda has endured for so long that I had quite given up hope that it could be transformed into an objective article, even handed and authoritative in the tradition of Wikipedia. For too long it has been locked in the iron grip of the few who believe that their view of what titles the plebs might or might not be permitted to use is the only one. This view appears to be British. Perhaps you have time and inclination to rewrite the article yourself as nobody else here appears to have the ability to sort this mess out. Dorsalnotochord (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read WP:SOC. I hope, that you understand...--Yopie (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Only titles from the semi-extinct feudal system may legally be sold. Which one's are those?Rylas —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

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)[reply]

circular definition

"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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

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)[reply]

German nobility was abolished

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)[reply]

Fictitious reference

The Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Fictitious references I have had edits reverted after explaining a deletion for a justified reason. The reference to Debretts at the end of the first paragraph on lordships of a manor should be deleted as per the above policy, as the reference has been given when it does not refer to the topic in discussion.

Firstly, a Scottish feudal Barony is in Scotland (to which the reference relates) and the article here is referring to English lordships of the manor. The legal system is different in England and Scotland, and lordships of the manor are different things to Scottish baronies. The title of a Scottish baron does not apply to an English Lord of the Manor. Secondly, the source does not support the claim anyway. There is no mention of "The Much Honoured" anywhere on the citation page, so the comment is unsubstantiated and the source is being used as a fictitious source.

As per the above policy, it should be removed which is all I did. Despite giving a reason, this was reversed, perhaps by the person using the fictitious source?

Please can someone remove the false claim from the article. An English Lord of the Manor is not entitled to the Scottish style The Much Honoured. 82.129.53.90 (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason may be valid, but you need to support that with an wp:RS. Please cite a source that states the source you are referring to is false. Please use wp:secondary sources. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People do not generally write things to say what something is not. This is an unrealistic request for a source. A source is not going to list all the things that a Lord of a Manor cannot call himself. There will only be sources saying that a Scottish baron is entitled to the style The Much Honoured, but this is an entirely different thing, in a different country.

The guidance on WP:FC is quite clear that the false use of a source should have the statement and source deleted. You even acknowledge the validity of the issue, which reading the cited source confirms to anyone clicking the same.

What you are doing here is allowing someone to pretend a source says something, when it says nothing of the sort. This should be removed. 82.129.53.90 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry WP:FC should say WP:FR 82.129.53.90 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually should be WP:FICTREF 82.129.53.90 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a false claim at all, a source for this information was available online however the editor is still a newbie in terms of editing wiki. A source for the claim has now been added.

The wiki page refers to the title The Much Honoured so regardless of the country its a valid reference to have entered. 82.40.88.192 (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]