Botetourt (1305) barony in abeyance

[colinp]

BOTETOURT (1305)

10th Baron (Henry Hugh Arthur Fitzroy Somerset, 10th Duke of Beaufort) d 1984 when the barony fell into abeyance between the issue of his late sister, Lady Blanche Linnie Douglas.  Present co-heirs are:-

1. Frederika Samantha Mary Thomas (1/4 share) b 1963.  Heir presumptive only daughter Davina Mary Mauritius Thomas b 1999 unm

2. Alexandra Louise Peyronel (1/4 share) b 1951.  Heir apparent only son Jesse Alexander Peyronel b 1977 unm

3. David John Seyfried Herbert, 19th Baron Herbert (1/2 share) b 1952.  Heir apparent Hon Oliver Richard Herbert b 1976 m issue

Any of the co-heirs can petition for termination of the abeyancy (as descendants of the parent of the last holder).  It is perhaps unlikely that Lord Herbert would as he has already successfully petitioned for the calling out of abeyance of the barony of Herbert (abeyant in the same circumstances) in 2002 and could also have petitioned for the barony of Botetourt but did not do so.  One may speculate that the reason was that as he had a half share and there were two baronies he would only petition for one of them leaving the other (more senior) barony available for the senior 2 co-heirs should one of the other branches die out leaving one co-heir with 50% of the barony.  It is noticeable that Lord Herbert petitioned for the junior barony perhaps as he was the son of Lady Cathleen Seyfried, the younger of Lady Blanche’s two daughters. 

[malcolm davies]

Neither Frederika or Alexandra possess more than a one third share of the dignity,so cannot petition.Only Lord Herbert can petition.Time is no yet an issue.

[Jelena JS]

Claims to peerages in abeyance will not be proceeded with if the commencement of the abeyance occurred more than 100 years before the presentation of the petition or if the petitioner (not being a child of the last holder of the peerage or a descendant of a parent of the last holder) represents less than one-third of the dignity.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/claims-to-peerage/

2018 m. rugpjūtis 24 d., penktadienis 02:41:53 UTC+3, malcolm davies rašė:

[malcolm davies]

Here is the link to the debate when it was moved in the House of Lords that the report of the select committee be adopted:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1927/may/31/peerages-in-abeyance

and pasted below is part of the speech of the Lord Chancellor:-

" They recommend that the following recommendations be submitted to His Majesty:— In the absence of special circumstances or special reasons to the contrary"— I call attention to these words because they meet some criticisms— (1) No abeyance should be terminated, the first commencement of which occurred more than one hundred years before the presentation of the Petition. 662 (2) No Petition should be allowed to proceed, where the Petitioner represents less than one-third of the entire dignity. I leave out the third and fourth recommendations, because they are of less importance. The fifth recommendation is this:— (5) In considering whether or not the Sovereign should be advised to extend his grace to the Petitioner for a termination of an abeyance, the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject, on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage should be conferred. Those are the chief recommendations. They limit the practice by requiring that, except in special circumstances, an abeyance should not be more than 100 years old and that a Petitioner should claim a right in not less than one-third of the dignity. Those, I think, are reasonable limitations of the practice which had grown somewhat anomalous, and I hope your Lordships will adopt them."

On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 6:47:05 AM UTC+10, colinp wrote:

[malcolm davies]

In my last post,I posted a link to the debate of the House of Lords on 31 May 1927.Although the motion was agreed to,there was a further statement by the Lord Chancellor on 6 July 1927.That statement was followed by a statement from Lord Hanworth MR (who had formerly been Attorney General.A link to the debate is here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1927-07-06/debates/6216ea8a-93a1-44bd-8843-f6b58c994a61/PeeragesInAbeyance

As you can see the requirement that the petitioner hold a one third share of the dignity was modified for those who were children of the last peer or were descendants of the parent of the last holder.At the same time,the recommended requirement that the

"In considering whether or not the Sovereign should be advised to extend his grace to the Petitioner for a termination of an abeyance, the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject, on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage should be conferred."

was dropped.

The result is that in the case of this peerage,Frederika Thomas and Alexandra Peyronel,as descendants of Lady Blanche Somerset,Countess of St Germans who was a descendant of the parent(9th Duke of Beaufort) of the last holder of the title(10th Duke of Beaufort) are not subject to the one third rule,nor are their children.Whether the one third rule has any application at all for peerages becoming abeyant since the select committee's report is open to question.

At any rate,that is how the changes came about.

On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 6:47:05 AM UTC+10, colinp wrote: