Scottish Baronies, Explained

No longer. Until 2004 these were properly called feudal baronies, because the dignity was attached to land held of the Crown. The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, which came into force on 28 November 2004, ended the feudal system and severed the dignity from the land. Extant baronies were expressly preserved, but the feudal aspects and the word “feudal” are now dated as a descriptor of a living barony — the titles were retained specifically as personal, non-territorial dignities. In the words of the Act (s. 63): “an estate held in barony ceases to exist as a feudal estate, the dignity of baron, though retained, shall not attach to the land” — and “nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron”. In plain terms: this was the abolition of the feudal barony, retaining the dignity of baron — so the “feudal baron” is now incorrect: a defunct historical term with no meaning in law.

The term lingers — other organisations can still be found writing “feudal barony” from habit — but legacy usage does not revive a legal category the 2000 Act closed. In law there is no such thing as a feudal baron today: since 28 November 2004 there has been no feudal tenure in Scotland for a barony to be feudal of — the feudal barony itself was extinguished, leaving only the title of baron, without the word “feudal”. The statute, not custom, settles the terminology.

Lord Lyon Sellar, in 2009, accordingly termed them “quondam feudal baronies” — quondam meaning “formerly”. The historically precise usage is thus “quondam feudal” for the pre-2004 character of a barony, and simply “barony” or “personal dignity” for its present one. For the titleholder, baron or lord or earl in the Baronage of Scotland is the correct modern description; collectively, the minor barons of Scotland, the term used by the Court of the Lord Lyon for this rank of the ancient nobility.

The Scottish Law Commission’s 1999 report that led to the Act drew the same line: the Scottish Parliament could “abolish feudal baronies altogether” while allowing “the dignity of baron, derived from the former connection with the Crown as feudal superior, to continue as a floating dignity” (p. 24); its discussion paper had mentioned, but rejected, the possibility of allowing the “noble aspects of the barony title” to lapse along with the abolition of the feudal relationship (para. 2.34). The feudal framework was abolished; the noble dignity continues.

This is widely misunderstood in both directions. Technically, in law, yes: since the 2004 reform baronies are freely transferable dignities and may pass by inheritance, bequest, gift, or assignation, with the transferee becoming the new holder.

A note from this site: Baronies pledged on the Roll of Scottish Barons are treated by the Roll as hereditary and not in commercio. A growing number of barons wish to reduce the in commercio aspect of baronies. By signing The Pledge they commit their title to hereditary descent — a commitment that shapes the future recognition of the barony upon the Roll of Scottish Barons, as explained in the next question.

In practice, the market is very small. The Scottish Barony Register (see how the SBR and the Roll differ) publishes annual reports of the Custodian (publicly available for 2021–2025); these record a handful of transfers in a typical year — and a recorded transfer is not necessarily a commercial sale, since assignations within families and by bequest can sometimes pass through the same register. Baronies generally remain within families across generations; a barony can only be bought if a holder chooses to part with one, and few do. Families are not selling their heirlooms.

Where sales have occurred, the sums indicate scarcity value. The Scottish Law Commission, working from 1997 market evidence, estimated a barony “of no particular distinction” at approximately £60,000, and in 2002 the Barony of MacDonald was reported to have been offered for sale at more than £1 million.

Baronies pledged on the Roll of Scottish Barons are treated by the Roll as hereditary and not in commercio. The Pledge is a declaration of honour by which a baron commits their barony to hereditary descent within the family line. It is open to every holder, inherited or not, and is meant to be re-signed by future heirs; it is optional. A growing number of barons have taken it, wishing to reduce the in commercio transfer of baronies. It cannot legally alter a barony — it operates in honour rather than law — but its practical effect is on future recognition upon the Roll of Scottish Barons, should a pledged barony later be sold outside the family.

In separating recognition from legal title, the Roll follows the model of the two official Rolls. The instructive recent example is the former Prince Andrew: Andrew Mountbatten Windsor remains Duke of York in law — only an Act of Parliament can extinguish a peerage — yet the King’s removal of his name from the Roll of the Peerage in 2025 withdrew official recognition of the title, not his legal entitlement to it. The Roll of the Baronetage goes a degree further: no one is received or styled as a baronet unless entered upon it.

The Roll of Scottish Barons is modelled between the two: recognition upon the Roll is paramount, as with the baronetage, while legal title is never affected, as with the peerage. A pledged barony that is later sold out of the family line does not cease to exist in law — but its recognition on the Roll is a matter of the Roll’s published method, just as the peerage and baronetage Rolls govern recognition in their own spheres. See The Roll for how the two official Rolls work.

Scottish titles have historically had more liberal succession rules than their English counterparts, with some descending through female lines. The earliest baronies, like other early dignities, carried remainders to “heirs and assignees” — because all noble titles, including the higher dignities that became today’s peerage, were originally territorial: they ran with the owner of the estate rather than the person. However, the title and estate were typically entailed to the male heir, which kept them in the family line for hundreds of years. Over time territorial peerages evolved into personal peerages attached to the individual.

Before the Union, Scotland operated differently from England. Titles were designed to be perpetual and were often resigned to the Crown and reissued with a new destination — for instance to a kinsman or a member of the clan — giving the system a flexibility the English peerage lacked. When a barony passed to a new family or baron, the practice was to resign the title and obtain reconfirmation of the feudal grant from the Crown. The Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874 ended this practice, and Crown confirmation charters ceased; thereafter it was assignation by legal conveyance and registration in the Register of Sasines that established the new baron. This is what created the so-called feudal earl.

Since 2004 the system has changed once more. The barony is now an incorporeal hereditament — a non-territorial personal dignity — which nonetheless retains the old remainder to heirs and assignees. It can be transferred or bequeathed by will, and where a holder dies without settling it, it descends under the pre-1964 rules preserved for titles and dignities.

It converted baronies from territorial dignities into personal ones. Before 2004 a barony was tied to a defined estate and its caput (the head place of the barony). After 2004 the dignity “floats” free of any land: it is an incorporeal dignity, comparable in legal status to a hereditary peerage, baronetcy, or coat of arms, but conferring no right to land.

It is sometimes said that since 2004 a barony confers no status or legal privilege. The Act says otherwise: section 63(4) preserves the dignity’s “quality or precedence” and its “heraldic privilege”, and the Lyon Court has continued to act on both.

Yes — by statute. When the feudal system was abolished, the dignity of baron was expressly preserved: section 63 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 provides that nothing in the Act affects the dignity of baron.

The Explanatory Notes to the Act confirm that the dignity survives as a personal, non-territorial “floating” dignity, no longer attached to land. A Scottish barony is therefore a recognised dignity in Scots law, held independently of any estate.

Subsection (4) goes further than the bare word. It provides that “‘dignity’ includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity”. That is the statutory hook on which the Court of the Lord Lyon continues to treat ownership of a barony as bringing a petitioner within its jurisdiction (Lord Lyon Morrow, Note in the petition of Menking, 30 April 2015, paras 6–8).

They are legitimate. A Scottish barony is a genuine dignity and honour recognised in Scots law: the barons of Scotland were affirmed as a “titled nobility” by the Court of the Lord Lyon in 1943 and by the Court of Session, and section 63 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 expressly preserved the dignity of baron when the feudal system was abolished.

What is not a title is a “souvenir plot” — a novelty square of Scottish land sold online with a “Lord” or “Laird” label. Owning one confers no title and no nobility; the Court of the Lord Lyon states that a souvenir plot is not even sufficient to petition for a grant of arms. Nearly every “Scottish title scam” story concerns these souvenir schemes — not genuine baronies, which are an entirely different thing (see Can you buy a “Lord” or “Laird” title in Scotland?).

A souvenir plot does not make you a Lord or a Laird — this is a widespread misunderstanding. Owning a novelty square of Scottish land confers no title: the Court of the Lord Lyon states that “laird” is “a description rather than a title”, and that a souvenir plot is not sufficient to bring a person within the Lyon Court’s jurisdiction to seek a grant of arms. On what “laird” and “lord” have meant in Scotland, see Lairds, lords and barons.

More broadly, it is a common myth that one can simply buy one’s way into the genuine nobility of the United Kingdom. The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 makes it a criminal offence to trade in the grant of honours.

No — a territorial designation is not the same as a barony, and the two are often confused. A barony is a title of nobility. The distinctly Scottish territorial designation “Surname of Place” form, such as “Kerr of Ardgowan” — is part of a person’s family name, not a title of nobility. The two are separate, and may or may not coincide. Where they did, the records call the same baron by both, the title and the name, often in the same deed: see Baron of X, or X of Y?

A baron may use the barony title (for example “Baron of X”) as a matter of legal right, without the Lord Lyon’s permission — although the Lord Lyon’s recognition of the barony title in the holder’s favour is nonetheless helpful (see Will the Lord Lyon recognise a baron as a baron?). A territorial designation is different: it must be authorised by the Court of the Lord Lyon, and is recognised only where the applicant owns a substantial estate — in Lord Lyon Sellar’s guidance of 5 January 2010, “an ‘estate’, or farm or, at the very least, a house with policies extending to five acres or thereby, outwith a burgh”. In the Kerr of Ardgowan case the petitioner was recognised as Baron of Ardgowan, yet the matching territorial designation was treated as a separate question — the Court of Session confirming the Lord Lyon’s discretion to grant or refuse a territorial designation. In Kerr of Ardgowan v Lord Lyon 2009 SLT 759 the Extra Division held that the Lord Lyon “does indeed enjoy a wide discretion in deciding whether or not to accept a change of name for entry in the Public Register”.

A territorial designation becomes a heritable part of the surname, separable from the land, only after it has been held and used for three generations, or 82 years. And owning the caput — the head place of a barony — does not by itself entitle the holder to the matching designation; that too must be authorised by the Lord Lyon.

In practice, many barons hold no territorial designation, and most people who hold a territorial designation are not barons; the two can be the same, different, or unconnected. A territorial designation belongs to the family name (surname), not to a barony or peerage title. TDs belong mainly to lairds (landowners of historic estates) and long-established landed families.

A baron may hold one too: where he owns the lands historically associated with his barony and is so recognised by the Lord Lyon, he may be “Surname of [TD]” as well as “Baron of [Barony]” — though the designation and the barony remain distinct.

A few Scottish peers also carry a territorial designation in their surname. The Rt Hon Jean Drummond of Megginch, 16th Baroness Strange (d. 2005), famously had the designation “of Megginch” recognised by the Lord Lyon in her surname — separately from her peerage Strange, which carries no territorial element. The Rt Hon James Borthwick of that Ilk, 25th Lord Borthwick, and The Rt Hon Patrick Johnstone of Annandale and of that Ilk, 11th Earl of Annandale and Hartfell, are others. This is different again from a peerage that merely includes a place-name: The Rt Hon Donald Cameron of Lochiel, Lord Cameron of Lochiel — “Lord Cameron of Lochiel” is a peerage title, distinct from his surname, “Cameron of Lochiel”, which carries the territorial designation.

“Of that Ilk” is a form of territorial designation used where the surname and the place are one and the same. “Borthwick of that Ilk” and “Borthwick of Borthwick” mean the same thing; which form is used is a matter of preference.

The custom has a statutory root. The Lyon King of Arms Act 1672 allowed only peers and bishops to subscribe by their titles, while “all others shall subscribe their christened names … with their surnames, and may, if they please, adject the designations of their lands prefixing the word ‘of’ to the said designations”. The clause was repealed as spent by the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, but it is the origin of the territorial “of”.

The usage is continental in character: the Scots “of” before a placename does the work of the Continent’s nobiliary particles — the German von, the French and Spanish de — naming a family after its territory. It is a custom Scotland shares with Europe, in keeping with the rest of its nobiliary practice. The territorial “of” does not exist in the United Kingdom outside Scotland: UK institutions such as HM Passport Office and the College of Arms refer “of” surnames to the Lord Lyon, and an “of” surname marks its bearer as Scottish. For the history of the designation — the 1672 Act, the Lyon Court’s test, and the passport — see Lairds, lords and barons in the Reading Room.

Maybe — this is at the discretion of the sitting Lord Lyon. Traditionally, in a petition for a grant of arms, where the Lord Lyon determines that the dignity of baron exists, that the petitioner is a “virtuous and well deserving person” — the standard set by the Lyon King of Arms Act 1672 — and exercises his discretion in the petitioner’s favour, he will officially recognise the petitioner as “Baron of [the barony]” and grant arms with additaments and a helmet befitting their degree. In recent years, the Lord Lyon routinely treats an entry in the Scottish Barony Register as sufficient evidence that the dignity exists, and may grant arms without recognition.

Recognition is not what makes a baron a baron — the dignity is held as of legal right. But recognition by the Lord Lyon is the formal mark of the title within Scotland’s heraldic system, and it rests with the judgement of each sitting Lord Lyon. The Lord Lyon holds considerable autonomy in this respect: part of that discretion is that the form of address recorded on the grant of arms is the one that should be used for official purposes.

The dignity itself is held as of right under s. 63 of the 2000 Act. In Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon [2019] CSOH 85 the Court of Session said a grant of arms is “only ever a matter of grace (and not entitlement)”. That was said of arms, not of the title. The court did not decide whether a baron is entitled to be recognised as a baron. The Lord Lyon has also said that “in Scotland anyone is at liberty to call themselves what they wish subject to it not being the intention to deceive” (Menking, Note of 30 April 2015, para 21).

No Lord Lyon binds the next. In Hamilton of Rockhall the Court of Session held that no policy or practice of a Lord Lyon is “capable of binding successors in the office of Lord Lyon in the grant of arms” (para 86), and the Lyon Court’s own counsel put it plainly: “no Lord Lyon is bound to follow a policy of his predecessor, for none can bind his successor” (para 39).

They are entirely different things and are often confused, sometimes deliberately. A Scottish barony is a title of nobility, granted historically by the Crown through a charter, conferring precedence, privileges, and — until the Union of 1707 — a place among the ancient Three Estates of the Scottish Parliament. An English “Lordship of the Manor” was never a Crown-granted title of nobility: it is a style attached to the ownership of a manor and confers no noble rank and no parliamentary rights. The nearest Scottish equivalent to a Lord of the Manor is a Laird. The Court of the Lord Lyon has itself stated that “laird” is “a description rather than a title”, and it likewise carries no formal status in law. For what the words themselves have meant, see Lairds, lords and barons.

The claim, made by some, that Scottish baronies are simply the Scottish name for English manors is incorrect: the two arise from different legal systems and carry different status. Today a barony retains legal standing as a personal dignity and carries heraldic rights; a Lordship of the Manor does not, because it never conferred noble rank in the first place.

There are no recognised English or Irish feudal barons today. They developed along different lines. Scotland followed the continental pattern of a titled nobility that extends below the peerage — a class of noble barons, with the territorial “of” that answers to the German von or the French de. In England and Ireland the word “baron” went the other way and became the lowest rank of the peerage; there is no English or Irish equivalent of the Scottish non-peerage titled baron. (The Scottish peerage has its own lowest rank, the Lord of Parliament, discussed above.)

The earliest English baronies were baronies by tenure — held per baroniam, directly of the Crown, the tenure itself carrying a duty to attend Parliament. From the thirteenth century the summons came instead by writ (a barony by writ). The Tenures Abolition Act 1660 then swept away the old feudal tenures: many baronies by tenure were converted into baronies by writ, and the rest ceased to exist as recognised feudal baronies, their lands passing into free socage. The courts closed the door on the older form — the Fitzwalter case (1670) held that barony by tenure had long been discontinued, and the Berkeley case (1861) confirmed that baronies by tenure no longer existed.

In Ireland the picture is more tangled still. An Irish feudal barony was a customary title denoting land held by feudal obligation rather than a rank of nobility, and its holder sat in no parliament by right of it. Separately — and more commonly — “barony” in Ireland means an administrative division of a county, akin to an English hundred, which is not a title at all; spurious “titles” have been sold trading on those place-names.

The Scottish barony followed neither path. Neither a peerage nor a mere tenure, but a dignity of a titled nobility, it came through the abolition of the feudal system in 2004 expressly preserved as a personal, non-territorial dignity — as set out above.

Lord Lyon Sellar put it thus in Sturzenegger of Arran: “Anachronistic and anomalous the position of the former feudal baron may be, but there can be no doubt about the thread of continuity from the earliest days of feudalism in Scotland until the present day.” And on the Heritable Jurisdictions Act, often assumed to have ended the Scottish barony: “Baron courts, however, were not abolished by the Heritable Jurisdictions Act, although their jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, was greatly reduced. … The style of ‘Baron’, although not incorrect, gradually fell into desuetude.”

The Scottish Barony Register (SBR) and the Roll of Scottish Barons are often confused, but they do different jobs: one records legal transfers, the other recognises the title. Set side by side, here is what each records, and what it does not: