Duke of Manchester's heir (or not)

[Eleanor Doughty]

Hello all,

Does anyone know whether or not the Duke of Manchester’s son is technically his heir or not please? The duke has been married a few times, and his son Alexander, born in 1993, is his only son, but by his second wife, to whom he was bigamously married.

Given that, I presume that he is not his legitimate heir, and this seems to accord with Debretts’ thinking, since he is listed online as Alexander rather than Lord Alexander, or with any other courtesy titles.

It is for something I’m writing, rather than for my own interest, and so I’d like to be able to say whether or not the duke has a legitimate heir.

Thanks ever so much in advance,
Eleanor 

[Peter FitzGerald]

You won't get an official answer until the current Duke dies and someone tries to be recognised as the next Duke - and maybe not even then, as the current Duke has not applied for recognition and there is no guarantee his successor will not take the same approach.

But the consensus seems to be that Alexander (as the son of a bigamous marriage) is not eligible to succeed, and that the heir presumptive is therefore the current Duke's younger brother Lord Kimble Montagu. Lord Kimble has a son (born in 2000) who is next in line.

[Eleanor Doughty]

Thanks Peter, I thought as much! Am much obliged.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/peerage-news/_am4hobdWwY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/e4ef2e13-6e3c-43cd-9a82-a233a4dd1fa7n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Eleanor Doughty

Feature writer

07854 073818

@brushingboots

eleanordoughty.com

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I think I recall the current Duke's son being listed as the heir at one time, because I recall him being called "Viscount Mandeville."  

I believe it all changed after a court case (maybe even more), when it was ruled that he was the result of a bigamous marriage.  At that point, Debrett's referred to him without the courtesy title, and began listing the Duke's brother as hp.

Peter put it best-- we will just have to wait and see.

Brooke

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

Nothing or no one can stop Alex Montagu from styling as such, though maybe amongst friends in the USA.

For those interested in Alex's instagram, it is @dr_montgomery 

I do feel sorry for him and hope he can test this in due course in the UK. Even though there is nothing left to inherit other then the current income from the estate that is in trust.

[Richard R]

He was last styled Viscount Mandeville in the 2011 edn of DPB. He is susbequently described as "son living (By Wendy Dawn Buford)" in the 2015 and 2019 edns and DPB online

[malcolm davies]

Some clarification on this issue.

The present Duke of Manchester is not on the roll of the peerage.

His son can try,on his death,to establish his right,but would have to prove he is legitimate(this is not unusual, every heir has to do it: see here;     http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/images/downloads/Guidance-Notes---Peerage-claims.pdf

  paras 10-16)                                                                                    ).

That cause is hopeless because of the litigation over whether the trustees of the Manchester estates could pay him an allowance:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1856.html

In paragraph 4 of the judgment there is a finding by the judge that Alexander is illegitimate.He did not dispute this in the litigation and is bound by the result being a party to the action.The secretary of the roll of the peerage cannot act inconsistently with the findings of the Court.

[Eleanor Doughty]

Thanks Malcolm. That raises its own interesting point: if Manchester is not on the roll of the peerage then does that mean there are technically currently only 23 non-royal dukes, not 24? 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/peerage-news/_am4hobdWwY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/f6530742-86c8-4b77-b38b-463a0af6bab1n%40googlegroups.com.

[malcolm davies]

Eleanor,

             No-click on the first link and go to para 2 as to what effect not being on the roll has.

[BREMENMURRAY]

Does the Dukedom of Manchester hold the unfortunate distinction of the peerage with most holders spending time in prison?

[S. S.]

I think if we consider the time period several other peers through the medieval and later periods spent in prison, we will find quite a few spending time in jail and their descendants. Not just the modern ones we know today from the past 100 years or so.

S.S.

[Peter FitzGerald]

For example, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Dukes of Norfolk all spent time in the Tower (as did the Earl of Surrey, son of the 3rd Duke and father of the 4th). Quite a few of the Earls of Arundel also spent time in captivity at various points.

[marquess]

Unlike the Manchesters, the Norfolks were imprisoned for political reasons as opposed to criminals ones (though political dissent might be considered criminal).

[S. S.]

It would be fun to figure out those imprisoned for political/intrigue reasons versus those plainly in for crimes. Perhaps another appendix to add to my rewrite of The Complete Peerage :)

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Since most Peers would presumably have claimed their privilege to be tried in the House of Lords, this is a good list of such trials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trials_of_peers_in_the_House_of_Lords

[BREMENMURRAY]

The present Duke of Manchester has something in common with the late Duchess of Kingston and Earl Russell who was eventually given a free pardon

[Robert Jewell]

Don't forget the 16th Duke of Denver, in 1935- Most honourably acquitted. 😁

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I know he wasn't a Duke, but  certainly in modern times at least, what about the 7th Earl of Lucan?

Brooke

[BREMENMURRAY]

He was never bought to trial and was not a bigamist