Duchess Dudley/Royal family connection?

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I have tried,  but have been unable to find a blood connection between  Duchess Dudley and the  Royal Family.  I'm hoping someone else might have better luck.

Born Alice Leigh to  Katherine (d. 1639,  nee Spencer) and Sir Thomas Leigh, 1st Bt. (d. 1625), she married Sir Robert Dudley  (illegitimate son of Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester).  They had 7 daughters.

Her maternal grandfather was Sir John Spencer, of Wormleighton.   In the years and centuries to come, the Spencer family   would claim many descendants as  peerage holders.    However, I couldn't find a single member of the peerage, much less nobility, that Alice  could claim as a direct ancestor.  

Alice was created Duchess Dudley for life in 1644.  She died in 1669, when the life peerage became extinct.

As always, any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Brooke

[dpth...@gmail.com]

This doesn't give a royal connection but gives more ancestry which might help.

Her paternal grandparents were:

Sir Thomas Leigh (ca 1504-17 Nov 1571); m.before 13 Mar 1536 Alice Barker [alias Coverall or Coverdale] (d.1603).


From Burke's Commoners, Volume I, pp 654ff:

Alice Barker was daughter of John Barker, of Haughmond, and his wife Elizabeth Hill (sister of Sir Rowland Hill, Lord Mayor of London).

Elizabeth Hill was daughter of Thomas Hill and of his wife, Margaret Wilbraham (daughter of Thomas Wilbraham of Woodhey).

Thomas Hill was son of Humphrey Hill, of Buntingdale, and of his wife Agnes Bird daughter of John Bird "and cousin and heiress of David de Malpas".

Humphrey Hill was son of Griffith Hull (note spelling change) and of his wife Margaret Warren, dau of Griffith Warren (said to be collateral branch of the Warrens, Earls of Surrey.)

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Paul, thanks for the additional information. I think if there had been a royal connection, you probably would have found it.  

To date, of the two dukes/duchesses where I have been unable to find a royal blood tie, both have been women.  

The other woman, the Duchess of Munster and Kendal was "at least"  the mistress of a King.  Here, there is no apparent connection (if you will ) to the Royal Family at all.

Brooke

[S. S.]

There is something interesting about the Dukedom of Dudley, both in terms of its creation, precedence and validity as a peerage. The Complete Peerage (2nd Edition) has the following entry:

"Alice Leigh, 2nd da. of Sir Thomas Leigh, 1st Bart., of Stoneleigh, by Katherine... m., about 1596 (before 25 Sep. 1597) as his 2nd wife, at Plymouth, the versatile Sir Robert dudley, the "so-called son" of Robert, Earl of Leicester... About this time Sir Robert tried to establish his legitimacy and his right to his ancestral titles, but in May 1605 the Star Chamber pronounced against him. He left England for Florence... and contracted a (so-called) marriage abroad with Elizabeth Southwell... By diploma of the Emperor of Germrany, 9 Mr. 1620, he was cr. Duke of Northumberland... His wife Alice [aforementioned], by a patent, dat. at Oxford, 23 May (1644) 20 Car. I, in which (inter alia) the creation as a Duke of the Holy Roman Empire by the Emperor Ferdinand II is recited, was cr. "DUCHESS OF DUDLEY" for her life, in England and other of our realms and dominions with such precedences as she might have had, if she had lived in the dominions of the sacred empire as a mark of our favour unto her and out of Our Prerogative Royal"...

Now what is really interesting is that V.G. notes in a footnote that the patent for this creation is given in extenso (i.e. in full) in Dugdale's Baronage, vol. ii, p. 225. What is rather important to note is that I could not find reference for a patent of creation being enrolled anywhere else. It is not noted in the venerable Sir John Christopher Sainty's Peerage Creations (2008) as that work only counts English peerages from 1649 to 1800. It is not either present in the Appendix to the 47th Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (which is an invaluable and authoritative chronological list of peerage and baronetcy creations), a definitive work for peerage creations between 1483 and 1646.

V.G. goes on to note the following: "J. H. Round [the famous and authoritative scholar and historian], however does not accept this creation of an English dignity (though it has been so supposed), and deems it merely the concession of such precedence in England". 

It also further notes that this is the last time that a peerage was given a higher precedence by warrant of precedency. You can find further details for warrants of precedence higher than the creation of a peerage in Appendix C of volume I of the Complete Peerage (2nd Edition) btw. 

In short, I think the patent awarded to Alice Leigh was simply one granting her the status and precedence of a Duchess and assigning the same style and precedence to her children. Therefore, she was not in fact created a true Duchess as a peeress by letters patent and it would be (I think) incorrect to assume her as a peeress. She merely had the precedence and style of a peeress, not being beholden to the dignity of one.

Could someone more experienced shed some light on this situation?

Funnily enough, the patent in full can be found in Burke's Extinct Peerage 1883, pp. 181-182. Here it is in full (apologies for the formatting since I had to copy it from the PDF copy I had):—

Whereas, in the reign of King JAMES, a suit was commenced

in the Star Chamber Court against Sir Robert Dudley, for pre

tending himself lawful heir to the honours and lands of the

earldoms of Warwick and Leicester, as son and heir of Robert,

Earl of Leicester, by Douglas, wife to the said earl, and all

proceedings stayed in the ecclesiastical courts, in which the

said suit depended for proof of his legitimation ; yet, never

theless, did the said court vouchsafe liberty to the said Sir

Robert to examine witnesses in the Star Chamber Court, to

make good his legitimacy. Whereupon, by full testimony of

the Lady Douglas herself, and other witnesses it was made

appear. But a special order being made, that the depositions

should be sealed up, and no copies taken, did cause the said Sir

Robert, to leave the kingdom; whereof his adversaries taking

advantage, occasioned his lands to be seized on, to the king,

our father's use. And not long after, Prince Henry made

overture to the said Sir Robert, to obtain his title by purchase

of Kenilworth Castle, &c., valued at £50,000, but bought by the

prince in consideration of £14,500, and promise of his princely

favour to restore Sir Robert in honours and fortunes; but

before payment thereof was made (if any at all), to the said

Sir Robert's hands, the prince was dead. And it appearing

that Alice, Lady Dudley, wife of Sir Robert had an estate of

inheritance in the same, descendible unto her posterity, in the

19th of JAMES I, an act was passed to enable her to alien her

estate from her children as a feme sole; which she accordingly

did, in consideration of £4,000, and further payments yearly to

be made out of the exchequer, &c.; which having not been

accordingly paid for many years, are to the damage of the said

Lady Alice and her children, to a very great value. And the

said Sir Robert settling himself in Tuscany, within the terri

tories of the great duke, (from whom he had extraordinary

esteem,) had from the emperor, FERDINAND II., the title of a

duke given him, to be used by himself and his heirs through

out the sacred empire.

“And whereas, our father not knowing the truth of the

lawful birth of the said Sir Robert, (as we piously believe),

granted away the titles of the said earldom to others,

which we now hold not fit to call in question. And yet

‘having a very deep sense of the injuries done to Sir Robert

Dudley, and the Lady Alice, and their children, &c., and

holding ourselves in honour and conscience obliged to make

reparation; and also taking into consideration the said great

estate which the Lady Alice had in Kenilworth, and sold at our

desire to us at a very great undervalue, and yet not performed

or Satisfied to many thousand pounds damage. And we also,

casting our princely eye upon the faithful services done by Sir

Richard I.eveson, who married the Lady Catherine, one of the

daughters of the said duke, and also the great services which

Robert Holbourne, Esq., hath done us by his learned pen, and

otherwise, who married Anne, another of the daughters; we

have conceived Ourselves bound in honour and conscience to

give the said Lady Alice and her children such honours and

precedencies as is, or are due to them in marriage or blood.

And therefore we do not only give and grant unto the said

Lady Alice Dudley the title of Duchess of Dudley for

life, in England, and other our realms, &c., with such pre

cedencies as she might have had, if she had lived in the

dominions of the sacred empire, &c.; but we do also further

grant unto the said Lady Catherine and Lady Anne, her

daughters, the places, titles, and precedencies of the said duke's

daughters, as from the time of their father's creation during

their respective lives, &c. Conceiving ourselves obliged to do

much more for them, if it were in our power, in these unhappy

times of distraction, &c., witness ourself, at Oxford, 23rd May, in the 20th Year of our reign.

P.S. Brooke, here is a link to the Complete Peerage (2nd Edition). The 1st Edition is terribly out of date and leaves much to be desired. The 2nd edition is far superior. Unfortunately, since it is apparently still under copyright, the work has not been published in full on Google Books, only till about vol 4 out of a total of 14. You can access and download all the volumes of the 2nd edition after making a simple free account on familysearch.org.

Here is the link: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/271412?availability=Family%20History%20Library

S.S.

[Paul Theroff]

I was writing a response at the same time as S.S., so have some of the same information:

This seems to have been a very unusual case with unusual circumstances. According to The Complete Peerage, the patent creating her Duchess specifically cited the fact that her husband had been created a Duke of the Holy Roman Empire, and so this creation might be considered as nothing more than assigning her a rank in England which she might have had in the Empire.

This was notwithstanding the fact that the title was different (her husband was created Duke of Northumberland by the Emperor), and her husband was actually parading a different woman around the continent as his wife.

--
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/zADaC_mMIuQ/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/f1726e83-bef9-48d8-ac3b-5867b4a7ec49n%40googlegroups.com.

--

D. P. Theroff

[bx...@yahoo.com]

S.S. and Paul, thank you both for your replies.

I had read what was written in The Complete Peerage before posting.  It wasn't like any other ducal creation I had ever seen, and I thought the whole story, especially Sir Robert (the "Duke of Northumberland")'s involvement with another woman was bizarre.  

I do believe your evaluations of the situation-- i.e., that it was more about creating an "equal" rank for her-- is spot on, and that she should not be considered a peeress in the true sense.  I therefore will not be including her in my research.

Ironically, today, I had been researching the Duke of Northumberland (1551 creation).  As it turns out, John Dudley, the first and last Duke of that creation, was the grandfather of Sir Robert.  I'm guessing that is why he chose to be called "the Duke of Northumberland", even though Sir Robert's was not a "true" peerage.

Also, S.S., thank you so much for sharing the link on familysearch.org regarding the Complete Peerage.  I already have a free account, so this is perfect.

Brooke

[malcolm davies]

The words of creation for Dudley (if that is what they are) may be contrasted with the letters patent for the Duke of Wellington(which can be found at p286 of Palmer.

The Duke’s letters patent include the following words “And moreover it being our will and pleasure to dignify the said Arthur,Marquis of Wellington,with the title of Duke,and to admit him amongst the Dukes of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland….And him the said Arthur,Marquis of Wellington,Duke of Wellington in our county of Somerset,Do by these presents advance,prefer,dignify and create …….the said Arthur….the name,state,degreestyle ,dignity,title and honour of Duke of Wellington aforesaid.