Ancient Titles & Legal Terms

Sometimes Artificial Intelligence interferes with historical accuracy. Recently, my Google Docs spell check / AI tried to change a historically correct 16th century Scottish and UK legal term, ‘amerciated’, into a totally unrelated term, ‘depreciated’. This caused me to look more closely at what else was getting altered, without my knowledge or approval. If anyone knows anyone at Google, tell them they need to pay attention to old legal terms, as they were, then, and update their spell check dictionary(s).

It seems Google’s AI/spell check has little or no knowledge of older legal terms, which ironically, can STILL affect the chain of conveyance of a property even today. Debts are often attached to properties, and to some extent, these debts can be passed on beyond a given property holder’s death.

There are some important terms that help explain why families rose and fell in permanence and even left. Murdering an earl was guaranteed to lead to generations of financial pain, if not bankruptcy, and loss of property. Strange as it may seem, one could sort of get away with murdering a peer, if one himself was a peer. One didn’t always lose his life, for this, but there were very significant fines imposed by the king or queen, his or her council and the judiciary, such as it was. The Wallace’s didn’t initiate the murder of the Earl of Cassillis in 1527, but they chose to listen to their in-law, (at least 3 times an in-law), Sir Hugh Campbell, Sheriff of Loudon and the murder happened on Wallace lands. The head of the Wallace’s at that time was Sir John Wallace of Craigie baron of Craigie, a peer, though not as high in rank as the murdered Kennedy Earl of Cassillis.

So, while Sir Hugh Campbell of Loudon was declared an outlaw and ‘put to the horn,’ and ended up in exile in France for years, while what remained of his immediate family in Scotland lost control of lands, etc., the Wallace’s were subject to a different punishment. It was called ‘amerciation‘ –the offending peer was literally placed ‘at the king’s mercy’ and it was the king or queen who assigned the punishment–and could alter it, make it worse or better the entire time the miscreant was in that legal state. The king assessed fines, very large ones, to be paid immediately. If the offending miscreant didn’t have the ready hard cash, gold or silver to pay–immediately, then the lands of the person were put under someone else’s control for that person to more reliably collect money from the lands somehow to pay the fines over time. The lands, technically, still remained the property of the peer, assuming the condition of the lands was such that it was reasonable to believe that the lands could pay off the fines in a period of years. A ‘letter of regress’ by a monarch restored control of the lands to the owner, as happened with the Wallace’s in 1545–when, coincidentally, the new baron of Craigie was not of the immediate descent or a sibling of the baron involved in the murder in 1527. A letter of regress was just that, restoration of control for having fulfilled, or substantially fulfilled the conditions that had caused loss of control. The Boyd’s of Kilmarnock who had been given control of the Wallace lands tried to challenge the Queen Regent’s ‘letter of regress’ but lost their suit. The amercements were deemed by the Court of Sessions to have been paid off enough to grant the Wallace’s control of their own lands again.

A more severe punishment, reserved for those accused of treason to king and country was ‘escheatment.’ This was actually the second part of a two-part process–the first being automatic forfeiture of your property for having engaged in treason. Whether the person was accused of treason or convicted, his properties were forfeit. They could be restored if, in rare instances, the accused was acquitted after investigation. Fleeing into exile was usually seen as an admission of guilt. Once the lands were forfeited then they were considered ‘abandoned’ and therefore could be made the property of the state and sold or redistributed. Making them the property of the state for resale or redistribution was ‘escheatment.’ This also happened when a male line failed and property had no master. Usually, the property went to the nearest male relative, but that might take a while to determine if the deceased had no sons, no brothers or nephews and several cousins instead all about the same relationship to the deceased.

The term for the actual fines assessed by the king in the process of ‘amerciation’ is ‘amercement(s)’. While ‘amerciation’ is not known to Google’s AI and its dictionary, ‘amercement’ of these fines is a term the two entities know–no problem with that. Still, together, these ‘services’ try to take over one’s writing!

The AI also tries to do this when transcribing/translating from lowland Scots: The programmers creating these monsters seem to think spelling rules were the same for centuries. They were not. In fact, there were few if any spelling rules for centuries. Worse, the letter ‘w’ was not uniformly used until the 17th century and later. It was ‘v’ if the first letter in names, for instance, such as Vallas for Wallace and Wallas (just two of at least 12 spellings for the same name now known), and in other words could be a ‘qu,’ or a ‘uo’. You could have all three in the same document, even! It’s great practice for reading many of today’s posts on Facebook, where people either never learned spelling or chose to ignore it.

Next, there are some important titles that are tied to specific tasks. Baillie’s were appointed by Kings, usually, but also higher-ranking peers as magistrates for non-capital offenses and disputes within districts owned by the king, either as king, or head of a noble family, or a peer who owned entire districts. Most baillies were appointed by the king. These were hereditary positions, passed on from father to son, so long as the family maintained a certain level of rank and wealth.

Tutors of houses of families, were appointed when a peer or head of a house died leaving a minor son. The ‘tutors’ were the nearest adult male paternal line relative to the minor heir, often a younger brother of the deceased peer, and had to be at least 25 years of age. When a brother who had become ‘Tutor’ died, and there were no other younger brothers, the title and responsibilities went to the next closest living male paternal line relative who had attained the age of 25 or more. The tutor was to teach and advise the heir on the management of his estates and largely handle the finances until the heir came of age. ‘Of age’ had different meanings for marriage, knighthood, taxation, and control of estates and was 16 for kings–mostly to prevent civil war among all the peers fighting to be guardians and regents–glorified tutors and then some, controlling and teaching the young king. Estate management was often age 21 for other than the king. Marriages–with the advice of a parent, tutor, etc. could be arranged, with contract, promises according to a timeline, etc. at about age 16.

Another important term that had associated responsibilities was most often seen after the Scottish legislative (Parliamentary) act of dissolution, ending the connections between churches in Scotland and the head of the Catholic Church in Rome. The legal act was called ‘the Papal Jurisdiction Act’ passed in August, 1560. It was unlike what England did. The abbeys, monasteries, etc. weren’t all immediately taken over by armed forces of the king or queen and the clergy killed or tossed out without anything and the buildings and lands immediately ‘sold’ by the king. In Scotland, most abbeys, etc. were to remain the lodgings of abbots, monks, etc. as long as there were monks living in them. Once they either died or chose to move away, elsewhere, then the properties were made property of the state and could be sold or redistributed. Until that time, though, tithes were no longer collected and sent to Rome, and likewise a portion of fines, rents, etc. regarding lands the abbeys and monasteries sold. Instead the money that went to Rome went to the government of Scotland, through the administration of the king/queen. The king or queen then appointed ‘commendators’ who managed the finances of the abbeys and monasteries to maintain buildings and infrastructure, and pay the excess to the Crown. Baillies of the districts in which the abbeys and monasteries existed, also then handled many legal matters involving the abbeys and monasteries. The lines regarding authority were often somewhat vague and there were conflicts between baillies and commendators. One notable exception to the continuance of abbeys and monasteries for years after 1560 was the ‘Black Friars’ monasteries–the Dominican monks who were the ‘Inquisition.’ They were universally feared and hated and had been known to abuse their authority to acquire lands for the monasteries and their keeping–and power. The smarter ones had the sense to leave immediately, abandoning the monasteries as they did. The Wallace House of Failford acquired the property giving them this name from the Black Friars who had a small rapacious (vilified even in poems and songs) monastery or priory at Failford.

Last, but not least, after various encounters at the latest Scottish gathering and games, there apparently needs to be a reminder of other titles and what was inherited and how or not.

Peers were members of the House of Lords or earlier the ‘council of barons (and up)’ in Scotland. The lowest level of peer was baron Peers were described as lords, not knights. Baronets did not exist until the 17th century, and though their title, as those of the peers, were inherited by sons or other near male relatives, they were not members of the House of Lords. A knight or chief of a house of a clan and attached to a particular estate could also be a ‘laird.’ Laird and lord are NOT the same thing. principal clan estate. If not a knight, but a man who was chief of the clan, only, he was styled ‘of that ilk.’ The title ‘knight’ was NOT inherited (legal term, ‘heritable’). Sir John Wallace, baron of Craigie, was also Lord Craigie. His kinsman, John of Dundonald, knighted, was Sir John Wallace, laird of Dundonald, as just a couple of examples. ‘Lady’ was applied to wives of knights, baronets and wives of peers, in addition to any titles such as baroness or countess of the seat of the peerage, such as Craigie, or Argyll,etc.. The title/term ‘Lady’ was also applied to the daughters of peers, but NOTt the daughters of mere knights. For a long time, ‘mistress’ referred both to a wife and a respectable single female, such as daughters of lairds, burgesses in towns, knights, etc. The oldest daughter was Mistress (later by 19th century Miss) surname of her father’s family. The younger daughters were Mistress (or Miss) followed by their Christian forenames. In ‘Pride and Prejudice’ as an example, Jane, the eldest sister is Miss Bennett, while her next sister, Elizabeth is Miss Elizabeth or Miss Eliza. The eldest son and heir apparent of a peer was titled ‘Master,’ such as ‘Master of Eglinton’ or ‘Master of Craigie.’

Squire is an unusual term as it began as the term for a young man of gentleman rank and family or higher apprenticed to a knight or lord to become, eventually, a knight himself. It then was applied to the sons of knights but only the sons, not the grandsons. As ‘Esquire’ It was also applied to lawyers and sheriffs–educated men, responsible men who usually obtained their education by coming from well-to-do families such as knights and peers. Law enforcement in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries was often seen as akin to doing battle in war for king and country in earlier centuries. Grandsons of knights, chiefs of clans, chiefs of houses of clans, lawyers, doctors, and a few others were often described as ‘gentlemen.’ Gentlemen and gentlewomen were generally expected to have some education, manners and means–including usually owning land. Officers in the military up until the founding of the U.S., or otherwise more recently in Europe, were once almost all from the ranks of gentlemen and above. Parents bought ‘officer commissions’ for younger sons.