I did a Google search after I found nothing on the subject through the NYT Archives. Google gave me supposed cache links to the Star article but these were simple summaries. A different word search led me to Leigh Raiment’s web-page (leighraiment.com) where, under his baronetage sub-page, I found that he’s recently (7/2011) done an update on Stirling of Glorat–though the information all dates from 1949!

It seems that John C. Stirling, Jr. is not the first Stirling of Indianoplis to consider claiming the title. Raiment excerpts most of The Washington Post article of 1 May 1949 in which JCS’s relation [grandfather?] expresses a disinterest in pursuing the title despite being informed by Debrett’s that he’s the likely claimant. Apparently, according to the 2009 article summary, Debrett’s now lists JCS as the likely claimant. Raiment notes that his sources show no change in the Glorat baronetage status as of 2011.

So, I wonder, what’s the hang-up on these Hoosier Stirlings claiming the title? No property or money? (But according to the 1949 story there was money about which Elizabeth Stirling, the 9th Baronet’s daughter, had some choice words to convey to her “American Cousin”.) Loss of American citizenship? (Apparently not an issue with SCOTTISH titles?) Lack of connecting documents at some point? (Perhaps, but the continuity of the family in Indianapolis seems well established.) Or just what?

Overall, it seems clear that this was never a really “lost” relationship within the Hoosier Stirlings. Just one not paid attention to by the son of the 1949 claimant, and that his son (auctioneer & undertaker) was only now getting around to reconsidering. Nothing on Google since 2009, so the rest of the story…?

Hope he’s found your Royal Descent posting. Nice work.