Nightingale, Mrs Eric (nee Gladys Agnes Lucy Jutton, c1904-2009)

[Richard R]

Telegraph notice: July 17th 2009

NIGHTINGALE
On 7th July 2009 at University Hospital, Lewisham in her 105th year,
Gladys Agnes Lucy (née Jutton), of B eckenham, widow of Eric, mother
of John and much loved aunt, great-aunt, neighbour and friend. Funeral
at Beckenham Crematorium, Elmers End Road, on Monday 27th July at
12.45 p.m. Family flowers only. Donations in her memory payable to
"Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust" c/o H. Copeland, 9 Bromley Road,
Beckenham, Kent BR3 5NT.

She was the widow of Eric Erle NIGHTINGALE (1903-52) They married in
1930 and had a son John Russell b 1945. She was the dau of Sidney
Arthur JUTTON. Eric is a scion of the (feudal) Baron of Cromarty’s
family.

[Turenne]

Richard R wrote:

> Arthur JUTTON. Eric is a scion of the (feudal) Baron of Cromarty’s
> family.

His assumption of the ancient title of Baron of Cromarty arose from
his purchase in 1964 of Cromarty House. I don't need to tell you that
the trade in feudal baronies is still going on, and has brought a
certain amount of disrepute to the whole system of Scottish feudal
baronies (see rec. heraldry ad infinitum).

Richard L

[Richard R]

And we should just make clear the he referred in the 'his assumption
of the' title comment isn't the subject of this post. I'm in two minds
as to whether to post something like this but do it for the record as
the family are in Burke's Peerage & Baronetage.

[Turenne]

Richard R wrote:

> And we should just make clear the he referred in the 'his assumption
> of the' title comment isn't the subject of this post. I'm in two minds
> as to whether to post something like this but do it for the record as
> the family are in Burke's Peerage & Baronetage.

No criticism of you was either thought or implied Richard. The sale
and purchase of feudal baronies and suspect TDs is a hobby horse of
mine, so I thought I'd put in my tuppence worth!

Richard L

[Richard R]

No criticism taken Richard L. It's quite surprising that Burke's
include these anyway. Wouldn't have happened in Hugh M-M's days

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

You're getting it the wrong way round. Feudal titles are the original
and proper titles and are far older; all the rest are 'mere personal
dignities'.

> > Richard L- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Richard R]

No-one in this posting has suggested otherwise. But things move on and
it's quite clear that the evolution of these titles to a time when
they can be bought does, in the eyes of many, lessen their value when
compared to 'personal' honours.

On Jul 18, 1:28 am, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Turenne]

Graham Milne

>You're getting it the wrong way round. Feudal titles are the original
>and proper titles and are far older; all the rest are 'mere personal
>dignities'.

I thought that feudal titles were incorporeal herditaments i.e. a
right which is attached to property and which is inheritable. The fact
that they can be bought and sold at will surely downgrades the
'honour'.

Are you still the Baron of Mordington?

Richard L

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Feudal titles have always been saleable (though originally only by
resignation and regrant). In feudal practice the honour follows the
wealth and power, so titles were always things of substance. When you
were 'Baron of x' it meant that you exercised power over the land (the
power of life and death). Personal titles do not follow anything other
than descent, which means that you can have, say, (of the top of my
head) an Earl of Leicester who has no land in that county. Even after
the abolition of feudalism that association with (attachment to) the
land continues. Feudal titles are of great historical significance,
personal titles are only as significant as the person who holds them.
Does anyone know of more than one Lord Nelson for instance? The
present lord is a policeman I think. Does that 'downgrade' the honour?
Many would say so I think.

[Richard R]

And many would say not, including peerage lawyers. The British concept
of nobility is now, whatever it may have been in the remote past, that
it is in the blood of the holder of the title, as the heir of the
grantee. It is not tied to land or other types of social position or
dependent on the type of job they have. Those things have simply moved
with the times.

On 18 July, 12:34, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Exactly, the whole concept of nobility was usurped (largely by
lawyers) who, having got themselves into a position of advantage
(wealth and power), tried (successfully) to cement those advantages
into their descendants for all time by this concept of 'hereditary
nobility'. They stole (and I mean stole) all the feudal trappings of
the ancient and proper peerage (who were real 'peers'), even including
the names of titles (e.g. 'baron'). They also usurped the concept of
knighthood so that 'knighthoods' are now primarily awarded to civil
servants, politicians and businessmen (not forgetting ageing rock
stars of course), so that chivalry has been divorced from any concept
of bravery. Who do they think they are kidding? Give them some sort of
gong for sitting behind a desk for 20 years if you like - but not a
knighthood; it just makes a mockery of the whole thing. So is Alan
Sugar now 'enobled in blood'? I think not. If this is the way that
'times have moved on' then bring back to good old days.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Turenne]

Graham,

I know what you are getting at; but you seem to be confusing the
French concept of noblesse de robe and noblesse d'epee and the system
that we have here.

Lawyers receiving peerages and knighthoods; it has always been thus!
In Ancient Rome where the knighthood (possibly) originated with the
Equestrian Order, the order was open to people who occupied *both* the
top administrative and military posts in the imperial government. The
original Knights of the medieval era were asked to "Protect the weak,
defenseless, helpless, and fight for the general welfare of all." It
didn't take long for most knights to chuck these highly laudable aims
out of the window. You are harking back to a time that never existed.

Richard L

[Richard R]

The simple fact is Sugar is now a nobleman with all that implies. Any
contrary view is precisely that: a view. Sugar has the law on his
side, whatever we may think of it.

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

I am harking back to a time (which did exist) when holding a title
depended on providing service and originally in the most dangerous way
possible (i.e. military service). A man only held his title as long as
he could provide the service and the same held true of his heirs (if
they were allowed to inherit). Thus, in feudalism proper service was
everything; if you didn't provide the service then you forfetied the
honour. The system that replaced this, the system of hereditary
nobility, left all the advantages with the 'noble' (wealth and power)
but none of the obligations. Nice work if you can get it. In fact,
feudalism in its purest form (a title - or seat in the legislature -
in return for service) is easily applicable today. Why not appoint all
the heads of certain bodies (The British Medical Association, the Law
Society, etc., etc.) to the House of Lords, but only while they are
serving in their respective positions. Thus, the nation gains the
services of people who are leaders in their fields AND has a
legislative body that has legitimacy because of its expertise AND (on
the assumption that people reach the positions they do as a result of
merit) it is open to anyone AND it does not challenge the supremacy of
the House of Commons. I would even go as far as appointing the leaders
of the County Councils as Earls of their counties (thus going back to
pre-Norman days). Under this system a commission would draw up a list
of bodies (reviewed every five years) whose chairmen would qualify for
membership of the House of Lords. These bodies would cover every walk
of life (the Royal Scoiety for the Protection of Birds, the Royal
College of Nursing, the Church of England - you name it). I would also
include generals in the army and those who win bravery awards; after
all, they have risked everything for their country, so their loyalty
is proven. I would allow the children of people who become peers to be
called 'The Hon.' so that the family get some sort of (temporary)
advantage and recognition for the efforts of the father (or mother),
without creating a class who enjoy permanent privilege; the
descendants get a 'leg up' for one generation, which is a fair deal I
think. So, you give an incentive to people to get to the top of their
professions (and so get a seat in the House of Lords) without creating
a hereditary system.

There you are. The constitutional reform of the House of Lords solved
at a stroke. My fee for this work of genius is GBP5.

And it keeps sad old nutters like me happy because we have genuine
Earls back in the Lords! What more could you want?

Graham

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

PS

'Man is known among men as his deeds attest,
Which make noble origin manifest.'

Arabian Knights

On 21 July, 11:58, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"

[Richard R]

Thanks for the quote. I assume you're not quoting a British law, in
which case it's as before: of interest as a point of view.

On Jul 21, 12:13 pm, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Likewise. Your point of view is of interest.

[Richard R]

Thank you but I try to avoid simply expressing a point of view in this
forum. In this case I'm citing the law of the land.

On 21 July, 15:21, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

Cripes! The law of the land eh! Isn't that what the Nazis said?
Clearly, one is not allowed to express the view that the law of the
land is a load of old cobblers. And by the way, peerage lawyers are
amongst the worst fraudsters one can think of; just consider Coke and
his invention of the doctrine of baronies by writ. Now, we all KNOW
that is cobblers - but it is the law of the land nonetheless.

[Richard R]

Where have I or anyone else said views cannot be expressed? I'm simply
drawing a distinction between expressing views and stating the law,
whatever we may think of the latter.

On Jul 22, 1:10 am, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"

[Turenne]

Graham Milne wrote:

>Cripes! The law of the land eh! Isn't that what the Nazis said?

That's a bit over the top, even by your own hyperbolic standards.
Richard R is one of the few voices of reason in the area of the
peerage and landed gentry; there is no neccessity for you to be
objectionable.

Richard L

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

I am afraid that if someone adopts that pompous 'it's the law of the
land' argument, they deserve to have a pin stuck in their balloon.
While it is fair to say that something is the law, it is not
reasonable to assert that it is beyond argument as a result. We all
know that 'the law of the land' has made an ass of itself in peerage
cases more than in any other type of case. The Complete Peerage even
refers to the 'arbitrary, conflicting and unhistoric decisions of the
House of Lords' (Vol. I, p. xiii), so, in fact, saying 'it's the law'
in relation to peerage matters is almost an admission that it is
wrong.

[Richard R]

"it is not reasonable to assert that it is beyond argument as a
result"

I've made no such assertion. I've quite enjoyed our (I prefer the
word) discussion on this issue and feel no ill will toward you as a
result.

On Jul 22, 1:16 pm, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"

[gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk]

We are both right, of course. You are quite right to state what the
current legal position is but it is also true that there is another
view (or other views). I think what I regard as unfair (and what set
of the discussion) was the assertion that feudal titles were inferior
to personal titles ('it [the incluson of feudal titles in Burke's]
would have never happened in H M-M's day' was the comment I think). I
don't think that is a fair or correct view. Feudal titles should be
valued as historic survivors of an earlier age; that was all I meant.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -