#This is not strictly in line with strict heraldic titles of the 21st century

[the-busy-ghost]

Lords and Lairds and Ladles

And while I’m on the subject of names and titles, it’s worth pointing out another easily mixed up custom that prevailed until at least the end of the sixteenth century (and probably later, it’s not my specialty).

If you were a nobleman whose surname happened to be ‘Kennedy’ or ‘Douglas’ or ‘Gordon’, that does not mean that you would necessarily be referred to as Lord Kennedy or Lord Douglas or Lord Gordon. Those are very specific titles which belong to specific members of those families. 

You MIGHT be referred to as ‘my lord’ as like an honorific, if you were a nobleman or a bishop or an abbot- for example, ‘my lord of Aberdeen’ would be the bishop of Aberdeen while ‘my lord of Murray’ could be either the bishop of Moray (most likely) or the earl of Moray (less likely, but still happened) or, very rarely, a nobleman with the surname Murray. However none of these people would hold the official title ‘Lord Aberdeen’ or ‘Lord Murray’, nor should they be referred to as such. 

Sometimes contemporary sources do make mistakes- in particular English diplomats often got mixed up when referring to Scottish nobles, and they might, for example, refer to any male member Kennedy family as ‘Lord Kennedy’, even if they didn’t mean the person who actually held that title. But it does not seem to have been common practice back in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and it certainly isn’t correct to refer to sixteenth century noblemen who didn’t hold a lordship of parliament using those titles in modern historical writing.

I am not au fait with English titles, but it seems that, nowadays, historians generally use the title ‘lord’ much more flexible- I have seen multiple members of the Howard family, alive at the same time, referred to as ‘Lord Howard’ in secondary sources. Whether that was actually the custom in the 16th century I don’t know, but certainly nobody seems to bat an eyelid now. 

But as a general (flexible) rule, Lord Hamilton is the man who has been specifically granted the title, not just any nobleman with the surname Hamilton. In 1503, Lord Drummond refers usually to John, 1st Lord Drummond, not any of his sons, and not one of the lairds of Innerpeffray who also bore the surname Drummond. There is a level in the Scottish peerage known as being a ‘lord of parliament’ and these lordships of parliament are an important concept, if sometimes complex. 

This is also why laird and lord are not exact synonyms. Yes laird initially stems from the concept of being someone’s lord, and most lords of parliament were also lairds (as were earls and dukes). Sometimes in poetry and prose you will find lord spelt like laird. But in a strict sense, lairds are a lower level of the nobility than the men called ‘Lord’- although lots of lairds, especially those employed at the royal court, could be influential too.

But when speaking plainly Lord Hume does not usually mean the same thing as ‘Laird Hume’. For example Alexander Hume, 3rd Lord Hume, who got his head cut off in 1516 was ‘Lord Hume’- he held the lordship of parliament and, though some might have disagreed, he would probably be thought of as representing the senior line of the family. Several of his kinsmen who bore the surname Hume were lairds though, such as the laird of Cowdenknowes and the laird of Wedderburn. Technically, Lord Hume was a laird too, in the explicit sense of someone who holds lordship over others. But a laird tended to be an ill-defined and lower level of lordship. Calling Lord Hume ‘Laird Hume’ would be like referring to the Duke of York solely by his knightly title Sir Edmund of Langley- he was both, but one of those is his highest title and the other is merely a subsidiary extra. 

Hence how James Hamilton, 6th Laird of Cadzow is created, in 1445, James, 1st Lord Hamilton. His son was later created Earl of Arran in 1503. But while the Hamiltons were an important, large, and influential kindred, this did not mean that other male members of the family were Lord Hamilton. Sometimes they might be Lord Hamilton of XXX (a location) or given another title altogether like Lord Paisley (for Claud Hamilton, third son of the 2nd Earl, in 1587). 

Alternatively Alexander Gordon, 2nd Lord Gordon, was made Earl of Huntly in 1457. In the sixteenth century we often find the eldest legitimate sons and heirs of the Earls of Huntly bearing the title Lord Gordon. Alternatively, they could be known as the ‘Master’ of Huntly, a common term indicating that the holder was the heir to the estate. But younger sons were not generally referred to as ‘Lord Gordon’ unless they had been granted possession of that lordship by the Earl of Huntly or someone with equal authority- for example, if they were the heir apparent while their older brother was childless. Otherwise they were usually just ‘my lord James Gordon’, or ‘Sir Adam Gordon of Auchindoun’ or ‘Alexander Gordon, the Laird of Lochinver’. 

As for their ladies, both lords and lairds’ wives might be referred to as lady, but in slightly different ways. So, had she not already borne a title from her first marriage (Countess of Bothwell), the wife of Alexander, 3rd Lord Hume would have been “Agnes Stewart, Lady Hume”. However the wife of Lord Hume’s distant kinsman David Hume of Wedderburn would be “Alison Douglas, the Lady of Wedderburn”, and the wife of the laird of Cowdenknowes would be perhaps “[Dame] Elizabeth Stewart, [the] Lady [of] Cowdenknowes”. Obviously full names were not always given, and bits and pieces get added and taken away, this was just to give a rough idea. 

DAUGHTERS on the other hand are never Lady Hume or Lady Elphinstone, unless they inherited the lordship. Lord Erskine’s wife is Lady Erskine, but his daughters are not all Lady Erskine as well, though they might become ladies of their husband’s title- Margaret Erskine, Lady of Lochleven because she married the laird (not lord) of Lochleven. Though their first name might be put in there to make it easier- Lady/Mistress Barbara Hamilton for example, who then becomes ‘Dame Barbara Hamilton, Lady Gordon’ or Lady Janet Stewart/Mistress Stewart who becomes ‘Dame Janet Stewart, Lady Fleming’ but never just Lady Stewart. 

The way people are ‘referred’ to in sources from sixteenth century Scotland is very fluid and flexible (and it doesn’t help that a lot of sources are from English or French writers who didn’t know the difference anyway). But from a modern perspective there are just certain unwritten rules. They’re generally easier to pick up naturally through reading primary and secondary sources than to explain exactly. The concept of a ‘laird’ is often confusing and ill-defined, but a lordship of parliament on the other hand meant something. Lord Crichton was not the same as Lord Crichton of Sanquhar, and certainly not the same as any number of lairds or younger sons who had the surname Crichton but held lands that weren’t associated with the lordship of parliament. Lord Lindsay of Crawford referred to the men who became earls of Crawford, but there was also Lord Lindsay of the Byres, and then a bunch of lairds and knights like Sir David Lindsay of the Mount who shouldn’t strictly be called ‘Lord Lindsay’. Stewart of Innermeath, Stewart of Darnley (later son of the earl of Lennox) and Stewart of Ochiltree all held lordships of parliament, but usually they would be referred to as Lord Innermeath, Lord Darnley, and Lord Ochiltree, even if theoretically they were all Lords Stewart. Then there’s a whole host of minor branches of the Stewart family whose heads can loosely be described as lairds, not lords. And in the plural, for example when referring to the political community, people usually refer to the Scots lords (as in the ‘lords of the parliament’ or ‘lords of the council’) not the Scottish lairds. 

And then of course churchmen come along and mess everything up even further, but we won’t get into that.