It would useful to explain why are our numbering is different from some other sources (see e.g. Britannica's : [1]) Pcb21 Pete 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed "The present claimant is Sir John Montgomery-Cuninghame of Corsehill, 12th Baronet, a direct male descendant of the second son of the fourth earl." as he is the heir male, the descendant of the 4th baronet whose claims were dismissed in 1797. Alci12 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thats all very well but cases are dismissed on a variety of grounds, including inadmissable legal preparation as well as insufficient evidence. Cases can be brought again, and Edmund Lodge, Norroy King of Arms stated in 1858 that Sir Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame, Bt., of Corshill, claimed the Earldom at that time. David Lauder 09:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The case was dismissed, as I understand it, on very specific grounds; that there was no charter of creation to define the descent - nor in the confirmations - so no basis could be found to decide between the claimants: the heir general and the heir male. There were heirs male and heirs general of the earls, wiki can't simply list one now as the claimant, over any other claimants when we have no basis so to do. There is no record I can find of a petition to the CfP c1858 and Norroys record of a claim is neither here nor there as far as establishing if it was valid.
- A new petition could be attempted but it would have to be, I believe, on a new basis as the CfP has been pretty strict about not adjudicating the same matters ad nau. The only recent comparable case I can think of was the earldom Annandale and Hartfell. There the claim was heard because all previous petitions had been on a previous charter (1661) and not on 1662 - which succeeded. Unless the non existent 500 yr charter suddenly came into existence I can't see the CfP would even hear another claim. 86.144.68.61 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would appear that the sequence to these Earls on the article page is out. Lodge gives William as 4th Earl; and Brown's Peerage of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1834, p.88) is also different giving, for instance, Alexander as 10th earl and his brother John as 11th. Britannica is not a reliable guide in these matters. David Lauder 09:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)