The Marquess of Cholmondeley GCVO & the House of Lords

[Richard R]

The KING's Lord in Waiting, the 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley no longer sits in the House of Lords. He sat as an hereditary office holder as Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain to Queen ELIZABETH II, but lost that right upon the death of the late monarch in 2022, when he relinquished his post. I wonder if he was offered a life peerage to retain his membership and, perhaps, refused the honour?

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

Would the Marquess of Cholmondeley return on the demise of KCIII under the next King ?  A rota of Cholmondeley on 50% and 50% of many individuals ?

If that is the case, a break for perhaps 10 to 20 years if the King reigns that long, may be seen as a good break. 

[malcolm davies]

Leigh,

           The inter family agreement means the Lord Great Chamberlain in the next reign will be the present Marquess of Cholmondeley or if he does not survive till then,his son.

When Prince George succeeds to the throne the Lord Great Chamberlain will pass to the descendants of the last Earl of Ancaster and the LGC will be Sebastian St Maur Miller(b1965) or more likely,his son Merlin who was born in the 1990's.

When that happens Merlin will no doubt be Lord Willoughby d'Eresby that peerage having been called out of abeyance.Abeyance will occur on the death of the present Lady Willoughby d'Eresby and the co heirs are the children of her 2 aunts,daughters of the 2nd Earl of Ancaster.Sebastian Miller is the senior co heir,so more likely to have the abeyance terminated in his favour.

[colinp]

Richard, I would be very surprised if Lord Cholmondeley had been offered a life peerage - he was not an assiduous attender of the Lords, as far as I can tell he never spoke or voted and my recollection is that he spent long periods on leave of absence.

[sven_me...@web.de]

Yes it would not be a good sign to appoint him.

[sven_me...@web.de]

At the beginning he was a members of committees. Listed by Parliament.,

colinp schrieb am Samstag, 19. Juli 2025 um 13:35:46 UTC+2:

[Henry W]

Given recent political trends, I would not be surprised if no offer of a life peerage was made to the Marquess of Cholmondeley.  His low activity only adds to that situation. 

The situation of the LGC in the anticipated reign after next (i.e. that of Prince George of Wales, assuming no accidents) will be the heir of the 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby.  Per Joint Lord Great Chamberlains & their heirs:

Jane Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby (1/4 share) (born 1934); co-heirs presumptive:  Sebastian St Maur Miller (b. 1965), her older aunt's grandson [his heir apparent is his son Merlin (b. 1999)], and Sir James Aird, 5th Baronet (b. 1978), her younger aunt's grandson [his heir apparent is his son Roman (b. 2011)]. This will split into 1/8 shares.

Under the 1912 agreement the LGC must not be of rank less than a Knight.  It would seem that if the Aird baronetcy continues to be linked to a share of the LGC, then whoever the Aird baronet would be at that time could be LGC without terminating an abeyance.  I am very wary about thinking that the Crown will terminate an abeyance in the future - I think the political trends are against this, though I accept that an exception being made for Willoughby de Eresby is probably the most likely termination.

[marquess]

What objection could the Crown give for refusing to terminate an abeyance if it falls within the 100 year rule and the claimant has the greater share or come an agreement with the other co-heirs for the termination in his or her favour?

[malcolm davies]

Marquess,

                  There is no good reason for the abeyance not to be terminated in the case of Willoughby d'Eresby. However the Crown always has that privllege.

Incidentally the 100 year rule is not binding and was not followed in the case of the barony of Grey of Codnor (abeyance terminated in 1989  after being in abeyance since 1496).

[marquess]

The claimant  to Grey of Codnor started his claim before the 100 year rule came in. I recall David Williamson bring the case to my attention via an article that stated as much in the Times.

[malcolm davies]

Marquess,

                  I am not saying that the barony of Grey of Codnor should not have been called out-but it nevertheless was in breach of the recommendations of the Select Committee.The point to be made is that the Crown's prerogative in these cases is untramelled, for good or ill.

[colinp]

The Select Committee recommendations were contained in an address from the Lords to the King presented on 7 July 1927 and which excepted petitions which had already been presented from the recommendations. The Grey of Codnor petition was presented to the Home Office on 2 December 1926.  It was therefore not subject to the Select Committee recommendations.