Extinct baronetcy in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia
The Baronetcy of Nova Scotia was a distinctive hereditary dignity created in 1625 at the close of the reign of King James VI of Scotland (later James I of England), and actively implemented and expanded under his successor, Charles I, as both an instrument of royal policy and a means of promoting the plantation and defence of Scotland’s North American territory of Nova Scotia. Conceived during a period of financial strain and imperial ambition, the order offered Scottish gentlemen hereditary rank—below the peerage but above the knightage—in return for monetary contributions or the undertaking to support colonial settlement. Unlike later British honours, the Nova Scotia baronetcy was explicitly tied to land, arms, and overseas service, blending feudal concepts of tenure with early modern imperial expansion, and leaving a lasting imprint on Scottish social hierarchy, heraldry, and transatlantic history.
Under the Articles of Plantation, each baronet was bound to furnish six men “towards His Majesty’s Royal Colonie, armed, apparelled, and victualled for two years,” or, in lieu thereof, to pay 2,000 Scottish merks towards the plantation and a further 1,000 merks towards the expenses incurred by Sir William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, in exploring and settling Nova Scotia.
Although the colonial settlement scheme in Nova Scotia ultimately failed to achieve lasting success, the baronetcy itself endured, continuing as a recognised hereditary dignity within the Scottish and later British honours system.
Sir Alexander Strachan, 1st Baronet (d. c. 1646) [1] On 28 May 1625, Alexander Strachan of Thornton acquired and was elevated to the newly created dignity of Baronet of Nova Scotia under the reign of King Charles I. [2] Sir Alexander Strachan of Thornton, Bt. had a seal (dated 1604), a stag trippant.[3][4] Given earlier entries in Slains and Hague rolls, the shield was almost certainly Azure (blue) and the hart (stag) OR (gold).Shield of Sir Alexander Strachan, 1st Baronet (1609) Alexander Strachan of Thornton, First Baronet, died about 1646.[5]
Sir Alexander Strachan, 2nd Baronet (d. c. 1659) - From a decrete in 1637, the son of the first baronet. [6] In 1651, served as Committee for Managing the Affairs of the Army, and Committee of Estates.[7] Opposed the Crown in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1638–1651) while serving in Scottish Government. After the Covenanter defear, Sir Alex. (and others) self-exiled to Bruges, Flanders (modern Belgium), where he died without heir in c. 1659.[8]
In a letter received from David Seller, Lord Lyon King of Arms dated 22 July 2022, in preparation of the 2014 Strachan Family Convention, "The history of the baronetcy of Thornton after its [second] holder who died c. 1659, does seem to be extraordinarily convoluted with a multiplicity of soi-disant claimants."
Sir James Strachan of Inchtuthill (d.1686); allegedly a descendant from a remote ancestor of the 1st Baronet, but “the relationship… is so distant, and the pedigree so uncertain that the right of such assumption seems extremely doubtful”.[9] Sir James Strachan was married to Elizabeth Forbes [10] Moved into the Thornton Estate in about 1654, before the death of the prior Sir Alexander in 1659 who was in exile in Flanders (modern Belgium). [11] It is virtually certain that Sir James of Thornton (formerly of Inchtuthill) did not recognised himself as Baronet of Nova Scotia, nor does it appear the Crown recognised him as Baronet. In a personal letter, he does not refer to himself as Baronet. [12] Also, in 1661, when Sir James was a member of the Estates of Parliament, is he not referred to as Baronet.[13] Sir James is also not referred to as Baronet in a royal infeftment dated 1681.[14]
Baronetcies were created solely by royal patent and were normally described explicitly as such. There is no patent, enrolment, or listing existing today for a Sir James Strachan, Baronet. The appearance of the honourific title 'Sir' in parliamentary records should be understood as conventional usage rather than evidence of a hereditary dignity. In summary, in seventeenth-century Scotland, “Sir” was routinely used for knights, lairds of estates, and sometimes even senior burgesses. In seventeenth-century Scotland, the honorific “Sir” was also frequently applied to clergy, deriving from the Latin dominus and denoting learned or clerical status rather than knighthood or hereditary rank, a practice that has led to frequent misinterpretation in later genealogical literature.
The earliest source for the erroneous attribution of a baronetcy assumed by Sir James and his son and namesake, appears to be Playfair’s British Baronetage (1811), which describes Sir James Strachan as the third baronet. Playfair further erroneously asserts that he served for a time as Minister of Keith (a different person) in Moray before being removed from his benefice during the political disturbances of the period.[15] This error being repeated by Rogers, Coknaye, Jervise, MacFarlane, and other antiquarian historians. Indeed, by practice, clergy were generally ineligible to inherit estates (pre- and post-Reformation) due to the virtual impossibility of having to manage the day-to-day operations of the estate, and also tend to their congregation's daily needs.
Sir James Strachan, Fiar (heir) of Thornton (c.1640-1715); On 15 July 1581, Sir James Strachan, the fiar (heir) of Thornton, and his spouse Barbara Forbes, received an infeftment of the barony of Thornton upon the resignation of Sir James Strachan, elder, of Thornetoune, Robert Forbes of Newtoune.[16] Sources suggest that, by a decreet of the Lords of Council and Session on the 28th March 1683, the lands of Thornton were, for £13,924, 14s. 8d., adjudged from Sir James Strachan [father], James Strachan, his eldest son, and Barbara Forbes, his spouse, in favour of Robert Forbes, styled " of Ludquharn." The transfer of the Barony of Thornton to the Forbes family in 1683 was not the result of a voluntary sale but of a judicial process arising from the financial collapse of the Strachan baronets. In seventeenth-century Scots law, adjudication was the principal mechanism by which a creditor enforced a claim against a debtor’s heritable estate. It functioned not as a sale but as a form of judicial repossession: when the debtor failed to meet an obligation, the creditor could seek a decreet awarding the land to him in satisfaction of the outstanding debt. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest this Sir James, like his father, ever assumed the title of Baronet, nor did the Crown or Scottish government refer to this individual as Baronet.
The evidentiary foundation for the four claims in this section mentioned below, are critically deficient. No letters patent recognising these baronets have been identified, nor is there any record of a service of heir, Lyon Court matriculation, or other official recognition confirming either the existence or lawful succession to the Baronetcy of Nova Scotia at this date. Moreover, the chronology of the following are in conflict with other Strachan baronets who were legally granted and recognised as the baronets of Nova Scotia and Representors of Thornton.
The Alleged Sir James Strachan of Thornton - Minister of Keith, in Banff (1686). Cokayne refers to this person as Sir James Strachan of Pittendreich, Baronet.[17]Pittendreich appears to have been a pendicle or subordinate holding within the lands of Thornton in Marykirk parish, Kincardineshire. The name survives today as Pitdrichie, a farm near Thornton Castle. Cokayne provides no citation for this claim to Pittendreich, and the few sources cited by Cokayne are secondary and subsequently cannot be completely relied upon without further confirmation in primary sources (grants, charters, privy council records, etc.). By this date, and certainly by the early 1700s, sources seemingly confirm the Strachan's had lost the barony and estate of Thornton through a decreet of the Lords of Council and Session (1683) as debtors to the Forbes Family.[18] Subsequently, the territorial designation "of Thornton" used here was given either as a courtesy, or alternatively, Sir James may have been a tenant or otherwise residing at Thornton, as suggested by Cokayne (unknown). We also have no record of Sir James ever using the post-nominals Bt. or Baronet. [19] Moreover, in early Scottish ecclesiastical usage, the title “Sir” was sometimes applied to parish ministers and does not denote a knighthood. Accordingly, Sir James Strachan, Minister of Keith, was not a knight or baronet; and the styling reflects an older clerical convention that persisted in kirk and parish records rather than any secular honour. Simply, the title “Sir” used here is a known ecclesiastical styling, which appears to have been confused over the centuries by antiquarian historians, particularly Andrew Jervise, who is likely the primary source of this confusion.[20] Moreover, there are no letters patent matriculated or otherwise granted by the Court of the Lord Lyon for Sir James, nor is there any record of a service of heir confirming his association with the prior baronet. Sir James's parentage, or pedigree, is also unknown from available sources.
The Alleged Sir William Strachan (1715): Cokayne's Complete Baronetage asserts that a Sir William Strachan succeeded to the Baronetcy of Strachan in or about 1715. The sole citation advanced in support of this claim is an entry in the parish register of Marykirk, recording the baptism of William, natural son of Sir William Strachan of Thornton, on 21 July 1715. This source, again, appears to have obtained this information from Jervise. [21] For reasons already stated above, Jervise misinterpreted the conventional use of the term 'Sir' for a hereditary entitlement. As further confirmation, there are no letters patent, service of heir, government or Crown documents that confirm this individual as the Baronet of Nova Scotia.
The Alleged Sir Francis Strachan (1725) According to Playfair’s British Baronetage, ‘Sir James Strachan of Thornton (formerly of Inchtuthill), married a daughter of Forbes of Waterton, and had a son, Sir Francis Strachan, the fourth baronet, a Jesuit priest in Paris’. [22] Unfortunately, there are no charters, grants, precepts, or other documents proving Sir James Strachan of Thornton (formerly of Inchtuthill) ever having a son named Francis. Cokayne's Complete Baronetage further states that Sir Francis assumed the baronetcy in 1725, but resigned the title to the next presumptive heir, John Strachan, of Sweden.[23]
These claims have genealogical, chronological, and heritable variances that cannot be easily explained.
From a documentary and genealogical perspective, the only source documents for this claim appear to be Playfair (1811), Rogers (1873, 1877), MacFarlane (1900), and Cokayne (1902). These works are occasionally valuable as a record of family tradition or contemporary belief, it is widely acknowledged to be uneven in quality, frequently derivative, and often lacking in primary citations. Assertions drawn from it, especially where unsupported by corroborating records, cannot be treated as authoritative evidence for the existence or lawful transmission of a hereditary dignity. To confirm, there are no supporting documents in existence that confirm Sir James Strachan of Thornton had a son, named Francis. [24]
Chronologically, these claims seemingly ignore armorial grants made by the College of Arms in London to Sir John Strachan of Inchtuthill, Baronet (1685); as well as the Court of the Lord Lyon who granted letters patent to Sir John Strachan, Esq., Baronet (1725); Sir William Strachan, Councillor at law, London, Baronet (1756); and Captain Sir John Strachan, Baronet (1765). [25]
Regarding the heritable right of the baronetcy, Cokayne and MacFarlane’s assertion that Sir Francis Strachan “resigned” the baronetcy prior to his death reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of the dignity and seventeenth-century practice. A baronetcy was a hereditary honour created by royal letters patent and could not be surrendered, resigned, assigned, or otherwise relinquished at the holder’s will. References to resignation likely arise from confusion between clerical office, social styling, and hereditary rank. The repetition of this claim materially undermines the credibility of these secondary sources, and those who perpetuate it.[26]
As with the earlier claims examined above, this narrative is unsupported by any contemporary legal, civil, or heraldic evidence. No letters patent, service of heir, charter, sasine, or Lyon Court record has been identified to establish that Francis Strachan ever lawfully held, or was recognised as holding, the Baronetcy of Nova Scotia.[27]
In short, the portrayal of Sir Francis Strachan as a baronet rest entirely on secondary assertions drawn from an unreliable and poorly cited genealogical compilation, unsupported by any primary evidence. While the biographical details concerning a Francis Strachan associated with Catholic clerical life in France or the Low Countries may be accurate in themselves, they do not - and cannot - establish the existence or transmission of the Baronetcy of Strachan.[28]
Blazon: Or, a stag at gaze Azure attired Sable a border Gules for differencing. CREST: A demi stag springing Or, holding a thistle in his mouth proper. MOTTO: Non Timeo Sed Caveo. SUPPORTERS: Two greyhounds, proper. [29]
Arms of Captain Sir John Strachan, Baronet (1765), and Sir John Strachan of Inchtuthill, Baronet (1685) with Supporters (two greyhounds, proper, not shown here).
Sir John Strachan, Esq., 4th Baronet Granted Scottish Arms by the Court of the Lord Lyon in 1740, which the Register states, "STRACHAN, John, Esquire, who now designs himself Sir John Strachan [Baronet of Nova Scotia].
Blazon: Or, a hart standing at a Gaze Azure attired Sable with the Arms of Nova Scotia in the dexter Canton. Crest: A demi stage springing Or holding a thistle in his mouth proper. MOTO: Non Timeo Sed Caveo. SUPPORTERS: two grey hounds Argent each charged on the shoulder with a thistle proper.[30]
Note: the blazon provided in the General Armory [31] are in error, and missing the 'Arms of Nova Scotia in the dexter canton' as provided in the Lyon Register cited above.
Shield of Sir John Strachan, Esq., Baronet (1740). In dexter canton, the Arms of Nova Scotia
Blazon: Azure, a stag trippant Or, attired and unguled Gules. CREST: An arm and hand holding a scimitar bentways. proper. SUPPORTERS: Two foresters clothed Vert, with a capes sable, a belt round their waists and staves in their hands proper. MOTTO: Forward.[32][33]
Confirmed in a letter received from Elizabeth Roads, Lyon Clerk, dated 14 July 1993, who transcribed the Lyon Register - - "Sir William was the elder son of Dr. Strachan, Professor of Divinity in Edinburgh, who was the son of William Strachan, Minister of Old Aberdeen, who is the eldest son of John Strachan, the son of Alexander Strachan of Thornton who obtained the Baronetcy of Nova Scotia." [34]
With Sir William’s grant of Arms by the Court of the Lord Lyon in Scotland, Sir William essentially usurped the Strachan of Inchtuthill line from the Baronetcy of Nova Scotia, and this family became the recognised Representors of Thornton. The significantly differenced Arms, i.e., blue shield rather than gold shield, reflects this change. Sir William Strachan died without heir, and as will be seen, the Inchtuthill family shortly thereafter regained the baronetcy; however, the genealogical line of Inchtuthill began to fail in successive generations leading to its eventual extinction.
Shield of Sir William Strachan, Bt. Councillor of law, London (1756)
Capt. Sir John Strachan, 6th Baronet Capt. Sir John was matriculated Scottish Arms by the Court of the Lord Lyon in 25 APR 1765, and is recognised as Sir John Strachan
Blazon: Or, a hart (stag) standing at gaze, Azure, attired Sable, within a bordure Gules. CREST: A demi stag springing Or, holding a thistle in his mouth proper. MOTTO: Non Timeo Sed Caveo. [35]
In the Lyon Register, Sir John claims descent from Thomas Strachan of Inchtuthill, Bart.,[36] who is likely a descendant (son, grandson, or nephew) of the 3rd Baronet.
Captain Sir John Strachan, Bart. died in 1777, and the dignity of baronet passed to his nephew, Richard John Strachan, then age 12, and already serving in the Royal Navy.[37][38]
Admiral Sir Richard John Strachan, 7th Baronet (27 October 1760 – 3 February 1828) was the nephew and heir of Capt. Sir John Strachan, 6th Baronet. Sir Richard (referred to as 'Sir Dicky' by his friends) is popularly referred to as the "6th Baronet," which, as you can see here, is inaccurate. His obituary is a very interesting read, and provides valuable career and genealogical information. [39][40] Although Sir Dicky Strachan was never granted a matriculation of Arms, he is recognised by the Royal Navy, House of Commons [41], and the Crown in numerous sources as Baronet, and his pedigree does not appear to be in question.
Admiral Sir Richard John Strachan, Bt. and Representor of Thornton, is the last “acknowledged” Baronet; however, the title was not passed without claim. [42]
Sir John Strachan of Cliffden (formerly of Woodside), Baronet is allegedly an heir. Sir John was born 22nd March, 1751, and was the only son of James Strachan, lieutenant, Royal Navy. He was a Magistrate for Stirlingshire, and married, 7th May, 1777, Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Hunter of Blackness, by whom he had, with other issue, a son, John, who succeeded him. In 1801 John Strachan sold Woodside, and was afterwards designed of Cliffden, Tynemouth, Devon.[43] Sir John of Cliffden, at the age of 91, did not file a petition through the Court of the Lord Lyon, but through the bailies of the Canongate. This was likely because he could conduct a local service of heir, whereas the Court of the Lord Lyon could not and would not determine baronetcy succession or invent pedigree where proof was lacking. In practical terms, the Canongate route was procedurally easier, evidentially weaker, and strategically advantageous. In his claim or brief, Mr. Strachan sought to instruct his descent from Roger Strachan of Glichno, brother of John Strachan of Thornton, great-grandfather of the first Baronet. George, a son of the minister, was represented as a merchant in Montrose, and father of James Strachan, Lieutenant R.N. father of the claimant. THIS STATEMENT OF PEDIGREE, UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, AND IN ENTIRE VARIANCE WITH CHRONOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS”, being accepted by a friendly jury, and certified by the Canongate bailies, formed the basis of a retour in Chancery, bearing date 8th November, 1841.[44] If Burke is to believed, Sir John had four children, (1) John (discussed below); (2) James Graham Strachan, of the Civil Service Bombay, deceased (unmarried); (3) Amelia, married to the Rev. William Page Richards, LL.D. Rector of Stoke Abbas, co. Dorset ; and (4) Catherine Margaret, m. to John Cave, of Brentry House, co. Gloucester, Esq.[45] Burke also describes the following Armorial Bearings: Quarterly, first and fourth, Or, a stag trippant Azure; second and third, Argent on the sea a galley, her oars in saltire Sable within a hordure wavy Azure. Empaling. Argent on a chevron Gules between three hunting-horns Vert, a crescent Argent between two cinquefoils or, for Hunter. CREST: First, a naked arm embowed proper, holding a scimitar also ppr. pomel and hilt or. Second, on a rudder a man's head sidefaced, all proper.SUPPORTERS: Two forresters proper. MOTTO. — Above the first Crest, Forward. Above the second, Steer steady.[46] Of note - These arms are not provided in the General Armory, and were not registered in Scotland. To that end, nor would one expect they would be, as Sir John would have been required to provide genealogical proofs to support his pedigree to Sir Alexander Strachan, First Baronet, and consequently his claim to the baronetcy. Sir John died 9 June 1844 at the age of 93.[47]
Sir John Strachan of Cliffden, Baronet - This Sir John was the eldest surviving son of the former Sir John of Cliffden. John succeeded his father after his death in 1844. He died 10 years later at Cliffden, age 70, on 28 January 1854 after a long and painful illness. He was married to Mary Ann, daughter of Isaac Elton, Esq., of White Stauton House, and had no issue. [48][49]
Regarding the Strachans of Cliffden, "So [with the death of Sir John] there was an end to the claim, which never would have asserted itself [after 1828] but for the absurd facilities afforded by the law then existing in Scotland." [50]
.jpg)
