Sir Ian Fife Campbell Anstruther, Bt (1922-2007)
Michael Rhodes
(of the 1st creation) and 13th Baronet (cr 1700)of Anstruther; author,
Hereditary Carver to the Sovereign and a Master of the Royal Household
in Scotland, died at his home, 29 July 2007. He was aged 85. He was b
11 May 1922, a son of Douglas Tollemache Anstruther (1893-1956), by
his 1st wife Enid (d 1964) scion of the Dukes of Argyll, daughter of
Lord George Granville Campbell; succeeded his kinsman, Maj Sir Ralph
Anstruther of that Ilk, Bt, GCVO, 19 May 2002. was Capt Royal Corps of
Signals; Member of the Queen's Body Guard for Scotland (Royal Comapny
of Archers); served in WWII with Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders,
Signals and Intelligence Corps; married (i) 1951 (div 1963), Honor,
dau of Capt Gerald Blake; m (ii) 1963, Susan Margaret Walker, dau of
H.St.J. B. Patten, and has issue, a daughter,Kate (b 1953), from the
1st marriage, and 2 sons from the 2nd union, Sebastian b 1962, and
Tobias Alexander (Toby) b 1968, and 3 daughters, Rachel b 1965,
Harriet b 1967, and Eleanor b 1971.
Is he succeeded by his 1st son, Sebastian, or 2nd son - Toby? The
first son, though legitimated, was born prior to the marriage of his
parents.
Michael Rhodes
==============
Turenne
On 2 Aug, 01:57, Michael Rhodes <migx73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Burke's styles Sebastian 'of that Ilk, younger' which I guess implies
he is the heir. I'm not too sure about the law of inheritance
concerning legitimised 'heirs' of baronets.
Richard L
Turenne
> Richard L- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just a quick postscript: Sir Ian was also the 10th baronet of
Anstruther (GB) 1798.
Richard
marquess
current Marquis of Queensberry, the first son is heir, even though he
was born before the marriage, as he has been legitimised by his
parents marriage; had it been a non Scots baronetcy, then this would
not apply? See also the case of Mcdonald of Sleat, the Irish peerage
was seperated from the Scottish Baronetcy. I would say watch this
space on this one!
> Richard- Hide quoted text -
Turenne
So you're saying that the eldest (legitimised) son might inherit the
Scottish baronetcies, and the second son the English one? As you say,
watch this space.
Richard
marquess
they are both Scottish, 1700 and 1694, this is an interesting one, as
I gather that there is a lot of property two family seats, don't know
the acerage though. Debretts 2000 doesn't give either sons as being
married? Possibly three family seats, as there is so property in
Sussex.
Turenne
On 2 Aug, 17:25, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> That would be the case if one were English and the other Scottish, but
> they are both Scottish, 1700 and 1694, this is an interesting one, as
> I gather that there is a lot of property two family seats, don't know
> the acerage though. Debretts 2000 doesn't give either sons as being
> married? Possibly three family seats, as there is so property in
> Sussex.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood but I thought that there were three
baronetcies:
28th. November 1694 Anstruther of Balcaskie (Nova Scotia)
6th. January 1700 Anstruther of Anstruther (Nova Scotia)
18th. May 1798 Anstruther of Anstruther (Great Britain)
Richard
marquess
previous baronet before the one that died, did succeed his cousin Sir
Windham in 1980, that might be the English one, but it is not listed
clearly. This should make for a very interesting case!
Turenne
On 3 Aug, 00:25, marquess wrote:
> Debretts 2000 only lists two baronectcies, but it does say that
> previous baronet before the one that died, did succeed his cousin Sir
> Windham in 1980, that might be the English one, but it is not listed
> clearly. This should make for a very interesting case!
>
I think that I've discovered how you missed the English baronetcy: his
cousin, Sir Ralph Hugo Anstruther (1921-2002), from whom he
inherited, lived two years beyond your Debretts.
Incidentally, wiki gives Sebastian as the heir - I only mention this
in passing, as I know that wiki is frequently wrong.
Richard
bx...@yahoo.com
1) Debrett's 2003 shows both sons as single. It lists neither as heir
but lists Sebastian with an asterisk, stating "Pending a ruling by the
Lord Lyon, the heir to the title is not clear."
2) Burke's 107th ed. does list Sebastian as heir.. Both Sebastian and
Tobias are shown as married, each with a son and a daughter.
Sebastian's wife is named Pornpan ("Goy") Pinitwong and she is from
Thailand. Their son (who would be, at least according to Burke's, the
new heir is named Maximilian Sengtawan Pinitwong (b. Jan. 26, 1995)
Tobias's son is named Alexander Thomas and he was b. May 14, 2002.
The late baronet is shown with only 2 baronetcies in each volume.
It will be interesting to see what the new Debrett's has to say when
it comes out later this year.
Hopes this answers some questions.
Brooke
On Aug 1, 8:57?pm, Michael Rhodes <migx73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Turenne
and tell me what you think...
http://www.zip.com.au/~lnbdds/home/godparents.htm
Richard
marquess
might see a split of seats as well as baronetcies, I can't see how
they Lord Lyon can rule otherwise than allow the first son the two
Scottish Baronetcies, my understanding is that there is substantial
property in Petworth Sussex, as well as the Balkcasie estate.
Turenne
>..might see a split of seats as well as baronetcies,..
It would seem an equitable solution.
RL
bx...@yahoo.com
late baronet's writings aren't exactly my cup of tea...
As far as the baronetcies, upon further inspection in Burke's, the 3
of them are mentioned. However, for some reason, the British
baronetcy (created in 1798) for Sir John Anstruther, 4th Bt. (of
Anstruther) is mentioned but not highlighted in bold or listed with
the other two titles. Don't know why... Kind of strange...
In terms of succession, Burke's states that Sebastian was born on Sep.
13, 1962. His parents married over a year later-- Nov. 15, 1963. I
refer to a similar case involving Viscount Lascelles, current heir to
the Earl of Harewood. He and his then-girlfriend welcomed a son on
Sept. 19, 1978. The couple then wed Feb. 12, 1979, not even 5 months
later. Yet, it is there SECOND son, born May 13, 1980, who is in
remainder to the Earldom-- the first son is not. Based on this
precedent, I would say Tobias should succeed to the baronetcy. (Of
course, I don't think they'll be asking for my opinion any time soon!)
It will be very interesting to see who does inherit the 2-- or is it
3-- baronetcies. (Much confusion all the way around!)
Brooke
Turenne
> > Richard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for looking Brooke, marquess and others. We'll just have to see
what happens...
Richard
Shinjinee
I asked questions about this a long while back on alt.talk.royalty and
private e-mails to Reitwiesner and others. This is a summary of the
answers I got back
the difference between the Harewood and the Queensberry case is that
the Harewood title is not Scottish, the Queensberry marquessate is
definitely Scottish; secondly, that the Lord Lyon decides on who
inherits in Scottish titles.
I'm not sure who now decides on succession to English and British
titles (does the Committee on Privileges in House of Lords still
rule?)
Queensberry decision -
Of course, I think that the Queensberry case was a doubtful one, given
that David Q (from now on) was married to a previous wife when his
eldest (legitimated) son was born. Given that precedent, a lot of
earlier Scottish sons born before their parents married (or rather
their descendants) could claim to be the eldest legitimate son. [I
don't know if anyone else has made this claim]. I understand that in
fact circa 1820-1821 an Earl of Strathmore's son was not considered
legitimated and thus not able to inherit because his (unmarried)
parents only married on the father's deathbed (and that too in
England). From this decision, the Queen Mother's ancestor, brother of
the late Earl, benefitted. The disinherited son founded a museum.
And, David Q has an eldest (illegitimate) son. If he now married that
son's mother, wouldn't Ambrose Carey become the new Viscount
Drumlanrig. Then again, David Q seems to be pretty casual about
marriage, divorce, and remarriage. He only married his current (much
younger) wife after the birth of their daughter Beth.
Furthermore, Sholto (now Drumlanrig) is apparently not married, and
there are no (official) doubts about the legitimacy of his two younger
brothers. (I say official, because their mother Alexandra apparently
ran off with another man, and her former husband David Q counts the
child born of that liaision or union as his, per some Tatler articles
I read several years back).
Anstruther case -
The issue in the Anstruther case is that both sons are by the same
mother; both are married, and both have sons. Based on the Q
precedent, the elder son Sebastian might win all the Scottish
baronetcies and the associated lands. He wouldn't have a chance of
winning any British titles, such as the 1798 baronetcy. Not sure if
any lands go with that.
There is at least one relatively recent barony where the current
incumbent has two (adult) sons by a second marriage, but both men (at
least one an academic) - who have sons of their own - are unable to
succeed because they were born out of wedlock. That is for a title in
the Peerage of the UK (but same goes for GB or English peerage). I'm
sure Michael will know the case. Thanks to the recent decisions
granting courtesy styles to adoptive and illegitimate children
(provided the parents subsequently married, an expansion of the
Harewood precedent I think), they have been allowed courtesy styles
IIRC.
Lots of illegitimate children are now being named (sometimes with
their other parent) in Debrett's, Burke's etc. For example, Viscount
Cowdray has an illegitimate son who is now married and has children;
that son's mother refused to marry the then Hon Michael Pearson.
Cranborne's heir Ned Cecil's illegitimate daughter is now named by
some works.
Shinjinee
marquess
find that the precedence for granting illigit children courtsey
titles, on the subsequent marriage of their parents is well
established before Harewood, see the Complete Peerage. I am not sure
that adopted children can gain such courtsey titles, as they are not
of the blood of the peer and it would require a change in peerage law
for that to be possible. As to the English baronecty, there are lands
in Petworth Sussex and there is an estate office. Some good
observations about Queensberry!
Michael Rhodes
Anstruther succeeded in the baronetcies in 2002 on the death of his
cousin, Sir Ralph Anstruther, Treasurer to the Queen Mother from 1961
to 1998. Sir Ralph himself had also inherited the title of Hereditary
Carver to the Queen. At first Sir Ian thought that this also passed to
him (in fact, it went to his second son, Toby) and his children
arranged for him to have carving lessons at Simpson's-in-the-Strand,
the famous traditional English restaurant in London - this was because
Anstruther disliked carving, preferring to leave the task to his
second wife, Susan.
and--------
Sir Ian Anstruther's marriage to Honor Blake, with whom he had a
daughter, was dissolved, and he married secondly, in 1963, Susan
Walker, with whom he had two sons and three daughters. Their elder
son, Sebastian, is expected to inherit the two Scottish titles; the
younger son, Toby, becomes the 11th Bt of Anstruther (GB).
Toby is also
Jan Böhme
wrote:
> >From the Daily Telegraph:-
> Sir Ralph himself had also inherited the title of Hereditary
> Carver to the Queen. At first Sir Ian thought that this also passed to
> him (in fact, it went to his second son, Toby)
This is contradicted by the text in your original announcement, which
gave sír Ian as Hereditary Carver at his death. By what rules of
inheritance would Toby inherit the title, bypassing his father?
Jan Böhme
bx...@yahoo.com
baronetcies could go to one son and the newer baronetcy to the other
son.
Brooke
grammarboy
peers would in future be entitled to the courtesy titles of younger
sons and daughters of their adoptive parents. .
marquess
retrospective, I mean the Duke of Richmond has two adopted daughters,
will they now become ladies, in the courtesy sense?
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
grammarboy
(Christopher Guest the actor) children now use their courtesy title.
My only problem with it would be if it started the trend like with
poor princely German families. In that they fully adopt people (for a
price) so they can call themself in the case of Zsa Zsa Gabor husband
"Frederic, Prince von Anhalf" (Note: I do know that Germany doesn't
recognise titles of nobility) . I'm sure there would be a one or two
down on there luck Dukes or Marquess who would be happy to adopt
people for a small price so they could call themselves Lord John
Whateverthepeersurnameis..
Michael Rhodes
I presumed that the the title of Hereditary Carver passed to Sir Ian
when he succeeeded to the baronetcy in 2002, but the Daily Telegraph
obit says not.
Shinjinee
> Thanks for that! A very important ruling I wonder if it is
> retrospective, I mean the Duke of Richmond has two adopted daughters,
> will they now become ladies, in the courtesy sense?
>
> On 12 Aug, 20:43, grammarboy <jokopit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A Royal Warrant of 30 April 2004 directed that adopted children of
> > peers would in future be entitled to the courtesy titles of younger
> > sons and daughters of their adoptive parents. .
I remember reading about this, and I think it says that it isn't
retroactive, or if it is, is for adoptions since only a certain date.
I will have to look this up, but there are other caveats as well IIRC.
So the four adoptive children of the late Marquess of Aberdeen and his
wife June are ineligible, as (I think) are the two adoptive daughters
of the Duke and Duchess of Richmond, who BTW aren't in Paul Theroff's
file even though I have pointed their names out to him a few times.
Shinjinee
the_ver...@comcast.net
--
The Verminator
"The path to citizenship begins with LEGAL immigration"
Cumberland Sausage
preppy socks dirty on atr ?
I recall you said to me duirng 2006 that I should take my shit to agr,
funny how times change is'nt it ?
marquess
case of when one is raised to the rank of an earl's son, or daughter?
If it is not being applied retropsectively then is leaves a disparity
in the mechanism of the peerage, which is most regrettable!
Jan Böhme
>My only problem with it would be if it started the trend like with
>two down on there luck Dukes or Marquess who would be happy to adopt
>people for a small price so they could call themselves Lord John
>Whateverthepeersurnameis..
The Dukedom of Manchester springs to one's mind as one possibility...
Jan Böhme
marquess
peers, where the title is still extant, otherwise there will be a
discrepency in the fabric of the peerage. In addition perhaps it
should be done in such a way that each peer will have to apply for it,
in the same way that the siblings are raised to the rank of!
On 17 Aug, 15:54, Shinjinee <ssen_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
marquess
peers, where the title is still extant, otherwise there will be a
discrepency in the fabric of the peerage. In addition perhaps it
should be done in such a way that each peer will have to apply for it,
in the same way that the siblings are raised to the rank of!
On 17 Aug, 15:54, Shinjinee <ssen_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote: