Talk:Sir John Lauder, 1st Baronet

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reduced[edit]

Who challenged the patent, the eldest son? I'm slightly puzzled as I can't see any legal grounds, LPs to younger sons were valid in both both English and Scots peerage law. Alci12 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rayment says it was annulled. He says nothing about any reduction. By contrast, David Lauder says it was reduced then cancelled. - Kittybrewster 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rayment is wrong here. The eldest surviving son, Lord Fountainhall, engaged in legal battles to have the first Lauder of Fountainhall baronetcy patent overturned. It is worth reading the four long pages of the transcribed and tightly typeset pages of Lord Fountainhall's Legal Memorandum on this issue when he raised a libel action against his step-mother in relation to the destination of the 1st patent, the same Memorandum being used in the action in parliament against the original Patent. The full transcript appears in Appendix XIII, pps: 403-406, in The Grange of St.Giles by J.Stewart Smith, Edinburgh, 1898. David Lauder 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More - further to this discussion I refer editors to the section in James Cunningham, 7th Earl of Glencairn where he brought an Action of Reduction was brought in precedence matters. I assume this is the same as the Action of Reduction Lord Fountainhall successfully brought against his father's first Letters Patent.David Lauder 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readability[edit]

David, my edits were not 'vandalism', but a good faith attempt to improve the readability of an otherwise diligently researched article. May I suggest that we keep the structural changes, because they aim to follow WP:STYLE, but put back in any information that you think is needed? Flozu 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A boy vs girl conversation! - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not see it as good faith that after our disagreement you suddenly turned up here and started messing around with this article. I have researched this family for 30 years, back the front. Relying upon comments from Burke and GEC in this instance is unreliable. David Lauder 08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe her suggestion of sections was good but her pruning was excessive? - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough Kit - I think I've now included pretty much all the original details, other than the locations of his wives' deaths and burials, and the occupation of his widow's subsequent husband's career. I would normally prefer to err on the side of too much detail, but this paragraph has a tendency to the cumbersome. I hadn't meant to leave out the Edington info - this was an oversight. I'm not quite sure what David means by relying upon Burke and GEC - is he referring to the statement that Lauder was the "eldest surviving son"? Some sources say that there were boys who died young from his first marriage - if wrong, please correct (with sources for clarity). Flozu 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think we should still be told why you came to this particular article instead of one of the other million pages in Wikipedia.

The use of phrases such as "some sources say" is unacceptable in academia unless cited. If shewn to be demonstrably wrong they should not be mentioned at all. The 1st baronet was the eldest son of his father's first marriage. They had another son, Robert, baptised on June 2, 1601 (see Old Parish Registers' indices), but as he is not named in his mother's Testament (1617) and John and his two sisters are it is assumed Robert has died. The 1st Baronet's father had three more sons by his second wife (he named the 1st Robert, a sure sign that the other Robert has died) as well as four daughters. David Lauder 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll skip that first comment, but please remember to assume good faith, its a wikipedia behavioural standard.... You seem to have misunderstood my previous post and I'd ask you to look at it again a bit more carefully. I think then you'll see that my comments relate to the 2nd bart, not the 1st. I assume that you already know the sources. Flozu 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]