The International Association of Amateur Heralds

JMcMillan wrote:I think the newspaper story sensationalizes the queen's role. Turning her formal signature on a document put in front of her by those responsible for dealing with such issues is not taking a deep personal interest in the matter. Succession to peerages is a matter of law, in which the sovereign cannot properly interfere. At least that' s how I understand it.

You are technically correct. HM The Queen would not personally become involved in a legal case, and it does, as I understand it, require her formal approval in the form of her Signature Manual (possibly even the use of the Privy Seal) for a case to be taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But I cannot imagine that she does not take a personal interest, as do we.

PS: The Pringle Baronetcy is not of course a peerage. Baronets are hereditary knights.

Absolutely correct re the baronetcy--my fault for reading carelessly.

Sounds like a story line for a modern Gilbert & Sullivan musical

Michael F. McCartney wrote:Sounds like a story line for a modern Gilbert & Sullivan musical

Or a Victorian melodrama. The rightful heir cheated of his inheritance ... a usurper occupying the ancestral seat ... baronets in black hats and capes, twirling their moustaches ...

Here are the baronet's arms. At least they're simple and straightforward : Azure, three escallops Or :