Talk:Lord Leslie

nuvolemercati.it source and Giacomo Merello

There is a source in the article that links to this page to support the claim that the holder of this title is considered a "Lord".

The cited page is a discussion about how to obtain heraldic distinction for "social status" and "dynastic recognition" by obtaining citizenship through Antigua and Barbuda. It does not specifically mention Lord Leslie at all, or support the claim beyond indicating that certain titles can be acquired.

Its worth mentioning that Giacomo Merello, the purported holder of this title has a business that supports individuals that wish to become a “Gentleman Armiger” and assistance in petitioning for "certain chivalrous orders". It brings up some concerns about possible CIO with regards to mentioning Merello in this article. Nayyn (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note that I have COI on this article. That being said:

1. @Nayyn your use of the term "purported holder" is defamatory to Mr Merello, who is clearly and openly the current baron. This is consistently reported in Debrett's https://debretts.com/directories/other-titles-2/the-feudal-baronies-of-scotland/ , RSN http://www.registryofscotsnobility.com/baronage/ , FSB https://baronage.scot/tour-of-the-baronies/leslie/ , and the baron uploaded on the official barony page also the Deed of Assignation from Sir Ondatjee https://www.baronyandlordshipofleslie.org/uploads/2/5/9/5/25955824/deed_of_assignation_2024_leslie_cc-by-4.0.pdf and the registration on the SBR https://www.baronyandlordshipofleslie.org/uploads/2/5/9/5/25955824/scottish_barony_register_certificate_leslie_cc-by-4.0.pdf . Your usage of the term "purported" is in clear violation of WP:BLP and also lacks totally any WP:V.

2. @Nayyn I went back to check this article you mentioned and while you stated above that "It does not specifically mention Lord Leslie at all, or support the claim", in fact this is an outright lie, as the article in question does mention "Giacomo Merello, Lord Leslie" as a recipient of the Grand Cross in the Order of the Eagle of Georgia, alongside Queen Elizabeth II, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and Prince Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy. Looking at the logs, you also removed this source anyway. I do not know if this was just you misreading or misunderstanding the article you removed, or if it was an actual lie. From where I stand this violates grossly WP:BLP, WP:V and borders on WP:DISRUPT.

3. It seems you misunderstand what does it mean to be a "Gentleman Armiger", as well. Anyone who is a UK or a Commonwealth or even ex-Commonwealth citizen, and has at least a University Degree can petition the College of Arms in London to be granted arms. This is something interest and heritage worthy, not some kind of "sale" of titles. Please check: Granting of Arms - College of Arms. Regardless of this, however, you cannot remove Mr Merello's name as the current baron (or Lord) of Leslie. This is part of his name, and it is a Dignity he is entitled to by law as his own incorporeal heritable property please check also the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Wikipedia's mission is to provide neutral, factual information to readers. In an article on a noble title, listing the present holder (with proper sourcing) is standard practice and clearly relevant encyclopedic content. Trying to eliminate that information would not improve neutrality or accuracy; it would actually deprive readers of a key fact. Keep in mind this article is about a title, not a promotional biography of an individual. Mentioning the current Lord Leslie in context is no more promotional than listing the current Prime Minister on an article about a Prime Minister's office. Again, I remind you WP:BLP, WP:V.

I respectfully ask that we move forward by improving the article - which notability in its niche is without question and is supported by really a number of academic, research, books, online facing resources etc - rather than excising pertinent information. For this purpose I will open here in the talk page a few amendment/modification requests. Let's however kindly correct the wording ("purported") to neutral language and keep the article factually accurate by not trying to remove objective elements, supported by citations, about the current Lord Leslie (or Baron of Leslie/Lord of Leslie if you will). Thank you for considering these points, and for your vigilance in maintaining Wikipedia's integrity. Together we can ensure the Lord Leslie article is an informative, well-sourced article that adheres to all guidelines while treating the subject matter (and people involved) fairly and respectfully. HeraldicFacts (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The links to Merello from Debretts are verifying, but not WP:SIGCOV. To answer your claims above, in fact there is documentation that the "ancient title of Baron of Leslie and Feudal Earl of Rothes" is property that has a background of being bought and sold, as it was in 2003 for ₤150,000. Links that are attributed to the Royal House of Georgia cannot be considered independent of Merello, as he works for them and promotes their schemes. Nayyn (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies - and I try to be very fair - but the fact that in 2003 the baron of the time put the feudal lands on the market, together with the titles, has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the title. Feudal titles have been passing through inheritance, assignment or sale since the 14th century at least. This has nothing to do at all with notability. Mr Merello inherited by assignment the title from Sir Christopher Ondatjee at the end of 2024; and previously Captain Crundall purchased the baronial lands and titles from the Leslies Trust in 1919 - this is all well documented and has nothing to do with the title itself being notable and with factual encyclopedic value. In fact the very article you quoted proves and confirms notability of the title. As per the current baron, he is clearly and openly, with full force of law in the UK, fully entitled to it, there are significant secondary and primary sources confirming it, including the actual Deed of Assignation signed by Sir Christopher and stamped by the Scottish Barony Register, and thus you should avoid using terms like "purported" which insinuates a doubt which is not there at all. I am in a position to upload the Deed of Assignation to Wikimedia Commons, if from the barony's official page this is not enough for you. HeraldicFacts (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Just so that I get this all correct, @HeraldicFacts:

• You have a declared COI, although you do not explain why.
• Of your 31 edits so far, 28 have been related to Lord Leslie or its holder.
• You imply that you have direct access to the literal Deed of Assignation for the current title holder.
• You have continued to edit articles related to the current title holder until a month ago, and you participated in the AfD discussion for his now-deleted personal page.
• Your only edit outside of this space is, curiously, about nationality law in Antigua & Barbuda .
• You have called @Nayyn's actions "defamatory", "violating BLP", "an outright lie", and "border[ing] on disruption".

It's hard to look at the profile above and see anything but the title holder themselves (WP:COISELF), or someone who works directly for them (WP:UPE). In either case, I would be very careful about this page. You're on the right track by proposing changes like you've done below, and then waiting for others to review and implement them. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 23:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Arcaist thanks for deciding to participate to this discussion. I want to clarify:

1. I have openly declared COI on this page following best practice upon @Nayyn suggestion;
2. Where I did contribute, and also how I am still contributing in this format, is and has always been in good faith, with only as a purpose factual accuracy, neutrality and adherence to WP:BLP and WP:V - this should hold true to all editors, either when adding citations or facts or when removing;
3. I do remind you very firmly that one of the really core principles and policies of Wikipedia is strictly prohibiting outings or attempts to unmask editors' real-life identities or to speculate about them publicly as you seem to be doing (see WP:OUTING and WP:DOXING). I would appreciate maintaining as I am our discussion focus on the content and the sources, and most certainly not on the supposed personal identity of any of the contributors. This trumps explicitly any WP:COI, even when undisclosed, which is however not even the case here.

If you want to assist and contribute fairly to this particular article in terms of accuracy, being clear and concise as needed and with better formatting of sourcing, with verifiable content (as I personally believe it is already, and even proposed further edit ideas - all heavily supported by appropriate citations), you are for sure welcome to do so, but you do must ensure and respect all of the editor's privacy and policy boundaries. Thank you. HeraldicFacts (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the "firm" reminder, @HeraldicFacts. It's very clearly not WP:DOX to suggest a range of persons which could be affected by COI, which you can easily see in the policy. You may also be interested to read the Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing, just in case this comes up again in the future.

In terms of the way forward, it's a good idea to use the Talk page for further improvements to the article. It's definitely not a good idea to then use Talk to post WP:PA (see my bullet point above) against another editor while you're under a declared COI. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 07:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Please however allow me to challenge and refute strongly that ay WP:PA was done at all; I merely highlighted how using the term "purported" is inappropriate and disparaging as it insinuates a doubt on the entitlement which is factually not in doubt - @Nayyn might well have been in good faith, but the term used is still not appropriate, for all the reasons I already explained. In the same way, I highlighted that the source originally quoted by the same editor actually *did* mention Lord Leslie - I am definitely willing to grant @Nayyn the benefit of the doubt given that article was in Italian. My critique is on the content and merit of the topic they opened on the Talk page, rather than on the editor itself.

Moving forward, and for both yours @Arcaist and @Nayyn fair and neutral consideration, my academic opinion is that the correct title for this article should not be "Lord Leslie" but either "Lord of Leslie" or "Baron of Leslie (Fife)"; or, alternatively "Barony and Lordship of Leslie". I did not edit the title. It is certainly possible and not inappropriate in social and less formal contexts to use "Lord Leslie" (ref.: Stevenson, The Scottish Nobility in the Later Middle Ages; Debrett’s Correct Form (Debrett’s, London, 1992, and subsequent updates): “The holder of a Scottish feudal barony may be addressed socially as ‘Lord [Territorial Designation]’"; Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, Scots Heraldry (1956, 2nd ed., page 145): “The owner of a Scottish Barony is a feudal baron and is sometimes socially referred to as ‘Lord [Placename]’ in the same way as the laird.”, but this should be reflected in the article as a secondary explanation of the informal or social acceptable use of the title, and not as the official title name. It is a wise, neutral edit that I recommend you to consider. HeraldicFacts (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

COI tag (July 2025)

Key contributors to this article appear to have connections to current owner of this title Nayyn (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nayyn as stated above I have COI. On this regards, let me comment the following: 1. I did not create this page originally; 2. I also remark that by WP:COI, having COI is "a situation, not a judgement about a person's integrity or good faith". My goal here is just to improve the article's factual accuracy, by providing correct citations and making sure the title is accurately credited to its lawful holder. I actually have avoided promotional content; if the information is correct and cited, it belongs in the article regardless of COI. Indeed, "no one on Wikipedia controls articles" - not the subject, and not any single editor. As stated above, I am more than happy to collaborate with you if you intend to actually improve in good faith the article, if you have and can maintain WP:NPOV, despite perhaps not liking yourself the idea of noble titles or how they work or are recognised by law in the UK. I will open below a new Talk page request suggesting improvements and citations, giving you an opportunity, if you so will, to edit appropriately. HeraldicFacts (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@HeraldicFacts if you have a COI regarding this topic, you should be sure to disclose it by using WP:DISCLOSE on the talk page here, as well as on your user page.

This page WP:COIE might also be helpful to you.

The assumption you make above, "perhaps not liking yourself the idea of noble titles or how they work" really has no relevance here. The concerns around this article are based on how well it adheres to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability, and No Original Research (NOR). The issue with this article in particular, and others in the Baronage of Scotland project more broadly, is that many articles in their current state do not adhere to these three policies (nor to WP:GNG). As you state yourself you have a COI here, thus complicating NPOV regarding this topic. Nayyn (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the COI template for further transparency. However, I disagree strongly with your statement about this article, and for intellectual honesty you should consider reviewing your opinion fairly - there are mentioned a quantity of high quality sources meeting WP:V, WP:GNG including website sources, news articles, archives (including Gvt), royal charters, the Great Seal of Scotland, academic books and publications etc. etc.. There is a clear and consistent pattern of academic and encyclopedic coverage and knoweldge related to this specific title, the Barony and Lordship of Leslie, from when it was first created in 1382 until today. I do not know and cannot express comments really on other individual pages of titles arising from the Baronage of Scotland, but this article in particular clearly and provably meets all guidelines. To counter your critique of WP:CONCISE and WP:CITE I further worked on a potential edit which I shared below. You should really consider fairly and objectively, yourself with WP:NPOV the historic and encyclopedic interest of the article, and therefore I kindly ask you to integrate as needed my edit request, and to remove the tags you added to the article main page. HeraldicFacts (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Improvements and Citations additions request

Given I have a declared COI on this article, I'd rather that other editors amend and edit correctly the article based on relevant improvements and citations. Based on the criticism of @Nayyn about the article being potentially confusing to readers and having an unclear citation style, I propose the following review:

Lord Leslie (Fife)

Lord Leslie (Fife) is a title of nobility in the Baronage of Scotland, a lordship of higher baronial nobility than a barony, connected to the county of Fife. It should not be confused with the Baron of Leslie in Aberdeenshire, a separate baronial title held by the owner of Leslie Castle,<ref>The Scotsman, "Fairytale castle for sale in Aberdeenshire includes feudal title," 28 April 2017.</ref> or with the peerage title Lord Leslie, which is a subsidiary title of the Earl of Rothes.

Note: In the Baronage of Scotland, “baron” and “lord” are historically interchangeable terms.<ref>Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland, Vol. 18, para 430–440.</ref>

The title was created by Crown charter in 1382.<ref>"Register of the Great Seal of Scotland". Register of the Great Seal of Scotland (742): 1382.</ref> As of 2025, it is held by Giacomo Merello, Lord of Leslie.<ref>"The Feudal Baronies of Scotland". Debrett's. Retrieved 2025-06-07.</ref> The seat associated with the title is Leslie House, located in Leslie, Fife, Scotland.<ref>"Leslie House from The Gazetteer for Scotland". www.scottish-places.info. Retrieved 2024-12-23.</ref>

---

History

The Barony and Lordship of Leslie originated from the territory of “Fythkill” in Fife, acquired by Sir George Leslie in the mid-14th century, grandson of Sir Andrew Leslie and Mary Abernethy.<ref>"The Leslies of Rothes". electricscotland.com. Retrieved 2024-12-23.</ref> The earliest mention of the barony appears in a 1382 charter by Robert II.<ref>Historical Records of the Family of Leslie, vol. I, Colonel Leslie of Balquhain, Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas, 1869. pp. 858–866.</ref> In 1398, Robert III granted a further charter to Sir George Leslie and his wife Elizabeth (the King's niece), requiring the annual presentation of a pair of white gloves at Cupar as feudal dues.<ref>Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum, 1306–1424, charter 1785.</ref> The barony was later renamed “Leslie,” with a 1455 charter referencing “the Barony of Leslie in the County of Fife.”<ref>The Scots Peerage, ed. James Balfour Paul, vol. VII, Edinburgh, 1910. pp. 272–274.</ref>

In 1458, Leslie Green was erected as a free burgh of the barony.<ref>The Register of the Great Seal of Scotland, 1458.</ref> Subsequent charters confirmed and expanded the lands associated with the barony in 1510 and 1542, listing lands including Pitgeddie, Ballingall, Formanhills, Hoill, and others.<ref>Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum, 1606, No. 1648.</ref> A 1606 charter described the estate as the “Lordship and Barony of Leslie with the palace.”<ref>RCAHMS/Canmore entry: Leslie House.</ref>

Following the Restoration in 1660, Leslie Castle was incorporated into the newly built Leslie House, designed by William Bruce.<ref>Wemyss, Charles (2005). "Merchant and Citizen of Rotterdam: The Early Career of Sir William Bruce". Architectural Heritage. XVI.</ref> During the Jacobite Rising of 1715, the Leslie family supported the Hanoverians, leading to the looting of Leslie House by rebels.<ref>"1715 - Jacobite Rising". digital.nls.uk. Retrieved 2024-12-23.</ref>

In 1763, Leslie House was severely damaged by fire but was rebuilt between 1765–1767, with later modifications by Sir Robert Lorimer.<ref>"Leslie House | Canmore". canmore.org.uk. Retrieved 2024-12-23.</ref> The house impressed visitors like Daniel Defoe, who described it in 1720 as “the glory of the place, and indeed the whole province of Fife.”<ref>The East Neuk of Fife, Walter Wood, Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1887. pp. 210–212.</ref> The estate changed ownership multiple times, including being held by the Church of Scotland from 1952, and was restored after significant fire damage in 2005 and 2009.<ref>"Fire devastates historic Leslie House". The Herald. 2009-02-06. Retrieved 2024-12-23.</ref>

As of 2025, Leslie House has been restored and is associated with the current Lord Leslie.<ref>"Grade-A Leslie House restoration approved by councillors". Scottish Housing News. 2020-10-29. Retrieved 2024-12-23.</ref><ref>"Lordship and Barony of Leslie (Fife)". The Baronage of Scotland. Retrieved 2025-07-05. https://baronage.scot/tour-of-the-baronies/leslie/</ref><ref>"Leslie (Fife) Baronial Tartan". The Scottish Register of Tartans. Retrieved 2025-07-05. https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/tartanDetails?ref=14723</ref>

The above version is neutral, is all factually correct, and in adherence and alignment with WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NPOV, WP:CONCISE. @Nayyn as you seem to be the independent editor more actively monitoring this article, I kindly ask you to consider the above and edit accordingly yourself, as you raised the issues in the first place. Thank you

---

HeraldicFacts (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)