3rd Marquess of Queensberry questions
bx...@yahoo.com
dpth...@gmail.com
It's not clear to me whether the new grant also included the Dukedom of Dover.. if not, then the younger James may have been de jure 2nd Duke of Dover, too.
dpth...@gmail.com
From Scots Peerage:
"...on 26 December 1705, he [the 2nd Duke] had, for family reasons, including the mental incapacity of his eldest surviving son James, Earl of Drumlanrig, entailed his estates on his second surviving son Charles and his heirs-male, whom failing, on his third son George, with remainder to William, Earl of March, and a long series of heirs identical with those in the entail of 12 October 1693, cited below. Following on this he resigned, on 12 March 1706, his titles of Duke of Queensberry, Marquess of Dumfries-shire, Earl of Drumlanrig and Sanquhar, Viscount of Nith, Torthorwald and
Ros, Lord Douglas of Kinmount, Middlebie and Dornock, into the hands of Queen Anne, and on 17 June he had a novodamus or regrant of these dignities to himself and his heirs of the above entail...."
...
"James, styled Earl of Drumlanrig, born 2 November 1697, was an idiot, and on that account, if not on account of the tragedy of which he was the perpetrator, was passed over in his father's entail of the titles and estates.7 He survived his father, and de jure succeeded to the titles of Marquess and Earl of Queensberry, which he never assumed. He died unmarried, and was buried, 17 February 1715, as Earl of Drumlanrig, at Lanesborough, co. York, among his mother's ancestors."
The Complete Peerage has this to say about the younger James:
"He was called "the Cannibalistic idiot" from a terrible incident which occurred about they year 1707 when he was left at home one day with a young boy who acted as turnspit, whom he actually spitted and roasted alive and was found eating."
S. S.
Brooke,
The case of the Marquessate of Queensberry and its related titles and their descent is a bit confusing of a scenario. I think it would be prudent to provide some background to the case and the related titles (based upon The Complete Peerage, The Scot's Peerage and Burke's Peerage among others):
William Douglas, 3rd Earl of Queensberry was cr. Lord Douglas of Kilmount, Middlebie and Dornock, Viscount Nith, Torthorwald and Ross, Earl of Drumlanrig and Sanquhar and Marquess of Queensberry in 1682 with remainder to his heirs male whatsoever. He was later cr. Marquess of Dumfriesshire and Duke of Queensberry in 1683/84 with remainder to the heirs male of his body. He married Lady Isabel Douglas, daughter of William Douglas, 1st Marquess of Douglas. By this marriage, he had three sons, though only the two elder sons are of interest.
The elder was James Douglas who would succeed his father as 2d Duke of Queensberry upon his death in 1695.
The younger was William Douglas. He was cr. Lord Douglas of Neidpath, Lyne and Munard, Viscount of Peebles and Earl of March in 1697 with remainder to the heirs male of his body, failing which to his other heirs male and of tailzie contained in his enfeoffment of the lands and lordship of Neidpath. He married Lady Jane Hay, daughter of John Hay, 1st Marquess of Tweeddale. By this marriage, he had a son, William Douglas, who succeeded his father as 2nd Earl of March upon his death in 1705. He married Lady Anne Hamilton, who was also 2nd Countess of Ruglen suo jure, being elder daughter and heiress of John Hamilton, 1st Earl of Ruglen (so created in 1697 with remainder to his heirs male, in default of which to the heirs general of his body) and 3rd Earl of Selkirk (having succeeded his great-nephew in this title). The 2nd Earl of March died in 1731 and was succeeded by his eldest son, William Douglas, now 3rd Earl of March. He would succeed his cousin as 4th Duke of Queensberry upon that person’s death in 1778 (for which see below).
Now let us go back to the 2nd Duke of Queensberry.
James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry was cr. Baron Ripon, Marquess of Beverley and Duke of Dover [GB] in 1708 with remainder to his third son (Charles Douglas, who would later be cr. 1st Earl of Solway). The 2nd Duke of Queensberry married Lady Mary Boyle, sister of Charles Boyle, 3rd Earl of Cork and daughter of Charles Boyle, styled Viscount Dungarven, son and heir apparent of Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Cork. From this marriage, he had three sons.
The eldest was William Douglas, styled Earl of Drumlanrig, who d.v.p. 1696.
The middle son was James Douglas, who succeeded his father as 3rd Marquess of Queensberry (more on why in a bit).
The younger son was Charles Douglas, who actually succeeded his father as 3rd Duke of Queensberry.
Now I know you are asking yourself, why did the younger son succeed to the Dukedom of Queensberry and the elder son as Marquess of Queensberry?
The 2nd Duke of Queensberry actually surrendered ALL the titles that were conferred upon his father EXCEPT that of the Marquessate of Queensberry (so created in 1683/84) and obtained a regrant in 1706 with those all those titles (except the Marquessate of Queensberry!) to his third son, Charles Douglas (later 1st Earl of Solway) and extended the remainder of all peerages to the heirs male or female descended from William Douglas, 1st Earl of Queensberry (grandfather of the 1st Duke of Queensberry as above).
The 2nd Duke of Queensberry died in 1711.
Upon his death, the Marquessate of Queensberry (only!) passed to the 2nd but elder surviving son, James Douglas, who now becomes 3rd Marquess of Queensberry and was mentally ill (pleasantly described as a “homicidal maniac” in Burke’s Peerage and the reason why the regrant was done in the first place). His second surviving son, Charles Douglas, would succeed his father as 3rd Duke of Queensberry being already created 1st Earl of Solway as above.
James, 3rd Marquess of Queensberry would die unmarried a lunatic in 1715. Upon his death, the Marquessate of Queensberry passed as normal to his younger brother, Charles Douglas, 3rd Duke of Queensberry.
Now lets go back to the 3rd Duke of Queensberry.
Charles Douglas, 3rd Duke of Queensberry and 1st Earl of Solway was cr. v.p. Lord Douglas of Lockerby, Dalveen and Thornhill, Viscount of Tibbers and Earl of Solway on 17 June 1706 all with remainder to the heirs of his father not being in succession to the Dukedom of Queensberry. He married Lady Catherine Hyde, daughter of Henry Hyde, 4th Earl of Clarendon. By this marriage he had a son, Henry Douglas, styled Earl of Drumlanrig, who d.v.p.s.p. in 1754.
When the 3rd Duke of Queensberry eventually died in 1778, the [GB] peerages of 1708 (Duke of Dover etc) and the [S] peerages of 1706 (Earl of Solway etc) became EXTINCT. The Dukedom of Queensberry and all remaining titles then passed to his cousin, William Douglas, 3rd Earl of March and now 4th Duke of Queensberry (who I alluded to above).
William Douglas, 4th Duke of Queensberry was also 3rd Earl of March now and later succeeded his mother (Anne) as 3rd Earl of Ruglen in 1748. He was also later cr. Baron Douglas [GB] in 1786. He is noted for being fabulously rich and a noted gambler, though he would die unmarried in 1810. Upon his death, the Barony of Douglas [GB] and the Earldom of Ruglen [S] with its other titles became EXTINCT. The Earldom of March [S] and other titles passed to his first cousin-thrice-removed, Francis Charteris, 6th Earl of Wemyss (hence why the Earl of Wemyss are also now Earls of March). The Marquessate of Queensberry [S] and other titles with it passed to the heir male of the 1st Marquess of Queensberry, being his fourth cousin-once-removed, Sir Charles Douglas of Kelhead, 5th Baronet. The remaining title of Duke of Queensberry [S] and its associated titltes passed to the heir general of the 1st Earl of Queensberry who was Henry Scott, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch and his second cousin-once-removed.
Thus, this convoluted story of creations and succession clears up the confusion as to why the Marquessate of Queensberry exists independently to the Dukedom of Queensberry, how the Earls of Wemyss inherited the Earldom of March and how the Dukes of Buccleuch now have become Dukes of Queensberry.
As a final (and rather long) aside it would be prudent to explain regrants in the Scottish peerage. I am not a legal scholar so I will try not to involve the legal jargon (or attempt to!).
There exists a legal process for Scottish peerages called a novodamus or a regrant, whereby the holder of a peerage would resign it to the Crown and (often) receive a new remainder to the title. This was done usually to either (A) change the name of the title (which actually occurs more often than you think); (B) to alter the succession in favor of some line whether more distinguished or allied or (C) just change the remainder of a peerage for the heck of it!
I can think of a few examples under these scenarios:
Patrick Lyon, 9th Lord Glamis was cr. Earl of Kinghorne and Lord Lyon and Glamis in 1606. His grandson, Patrick Lyon, 3rd Earl of Kinghorn received a novodamus dated 1672 to extend the limitation of the earldom in default of direct male issue to any person or persons nominated by himself and in failure of which to his heirs and assigns whatsoever. He then received another novodamus dated 1677 that actually renamed his earldom as “Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne” with the precedency of the original earldom. Why the change of designation of the title? As far as I can ascertain, there is no specific reason.
Another example that comes to mind where succession changes is the Earldom of Annandale and Hartfell (you can check out my Complete Peerage rewrite of that article in the Peerage News Group for further details).
A particularly infamous example of changes remainder is that of the Earldom of Selkirk. William Douglas, eldest son and heir of William Douglas, 1st Marquess of Douglas married Lady Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton suo jure. He was cr. Lord Dear and Shortcleuch and Earl of Selkirk in 1646 with remainder to his heirs male whatsoever bearing the name of Douglas. He later resigned these titles in 1688 and received a novodamus with the remainder changed to that of his younger son, Charles Hamilton. William Douglas was also cr. Duke of Hamilton etc for life in 1660. As an aside, note that that immediate younger brother of this Charles Hamilton was John Hamilton, 1st Earl of Ruglen later also 3rd Earl of Selkirk, father of Anne Hamilton, 2nd Countess of Ruglen suo jure as above. Upon his death in 1694, he was succeeded by the said Charles Hamilton, now 2nd Earl of Selkirk. Note that the Dukedom of Hamilton etc passed to his eldest son, James Hamilton. Charles received a novodamus dated October 1688 which gave a very complicated remainder to the Earldom of Selkirk (which I will discuss at some other time in future due to how complex it is!).
An interesting example of multiple resignation is that of the Earls of Caithness. The 1st Earl of Caithness had succeeded his father as 3rd Earl of Orkney in 1418/20. However, he was forced to resign the Earldom of Orkney to the Crown and received the Earldom of Caithness as compensation in 1455. His descendant, George Sinclair, 4th Earl of Caithness resigned the earldom by novodamus dated 1545 with remainder to his son and heir apparent (John Sinclair, who d.v.p.) and his heirs male and assigns, which failing to the heirs male of his own body and his heirs male whatsoever. He was thus succeeded by his grandson, George Sinclair, now 5th Earl of Caithness. He then resigned the earldom in 1592 in favour of his son and heir, William Sinclair, styled Lord Berriedale, but retained the life rent on the title. Upon his death he was succeeded by his grandson, George Sincair, now 6th Earl of Caithness. In 1672, he “ being much involved in debt, he granted a redeemable disposition of his Earldom (as held under a charter of adjudication) to his principal creditor, Sir John Campbell of Glenorchy, providing for the assumption by him of the title of Earl, when the right to the lands became absolute, that is after six years. Glenorchy had Crown confirmation of, and sasine on, this disposition. On the death of Earl George, Glenorchy laid claim to the dignity as well as the lands, while the heir male, George Sinclair of Keiss, also assumed the title, and got a charter in implement, including both estates and title; and endeavoured, under sanction of the authorities, to make good his right by an armed invasion of Caithness. Eventually it was decided that the adjudication could not extend to the peerage dignity, so King Charles II, convinced of the Sinclairs' rights, in 1680 created Glenorchy Earl of Breadalbane and Holland, who then relinquished his claim to the Earldom of Caithness” (courtesy of Cracroft’s Peerage).
Another example is that of the Earldom of Haddington. Charles Hamilton, 5th Earl of Haddington married Lady Margaret Leslie, 8th Countess of Rothes suo jure. The marriage contract dated “7 Oct 1674 provided that if Lady Margaret inherited her father's earldom, the eldest son of the marriage was to succeed to the Earldom of Rothes, and the second son to the Earldom of Haddington, with the proviso that if there was only one son he was to assume the name of Leslie and arrangements were made for continuation of the succession through daughters if there were no sons; suc. her father as Countess of Rothes 26 Jul 1681 under the terms of the regrant of 1663; her succession was accepted by the Crown but disputed by her cousin John [Leslie], 4th Lord Lindores as heir male ; the matter was remitted by the Privy Council to the Court of Session in 1682 but Lord Lindores did not press his claim any further; in 1684 the Countess executed an entail by which she resigned and granted her estates of the Earldom of Rothes in favour of "herself and Charles, Earl of Haddington, her husband, and the longest liver of them in liferent during all the days of their lifetimes, and to John, Lord Leslie, their son, and the heirs-male or the eldest heir-female to be procreate of his body, whom failing, to the other heirs-male lawfully procreate or to be procreate betwixt the Countess of Rothes and the Earl of Haddington, her husband, and the heirs-male or eldest heir-female lawfully to be procreate of their body, whom failing, to the other heirs-male lawfully to be procreate of the said Countess of Rothes by any other marriage, and heirs-male or eldest heir-female of their body, whom failing, to the eldest daughter or heir-female lawfully procreate or to be procreate betwixt the said Countess and the said Earl, and the heirs-male or eldest heir-female lawfully to be procreate of their body, whom failing, to the eldest daughter or heir-female to be procreate of the Countess by any other marriage, and the heirs-male or eldest heir-female lawfully to be procreate of their body, whom failing to Christian, Marchioness of Montrose, her sister-german, and the heirs-male of eldest heir-female lawfully procreate or to be procreate of her body, the immediate heir-female, failing of the eldest and their heirs, always succeeding successive in all these cases and without division, whom failing, to Mr Francis Montgomerie, brother-german to the Earl of Eglinton, and the heirs-male lawfully procreate or to be procreate of his body, whom failing, to John Leslie of Newtowne, and the heirs-male lawfully procreate or to be procreate of his body, whom failing, to the said Margaret, Countess of Rothes, her nearest and lawful heirs-male whatsomever, whom all failing, to her other heirs and assignees whatsomever heritably, the eldest daughter or heir-female successive always succeeding without division” (courtesy of Cracroft’s Peerage). Thus, the two titles remained separate rather than merging.
A related case is to the Earls of Haddington themselves. Thomas Hamilton, son of Sir Thomas Hamilton of Priestfield was cr. Lord Binning in 1613 with remainder to the heirs male bearing the name and arms of Hamilton. He was later cr. Lord Byres and Binning and Earl of Melrose in 1619 with similar remainder. He then obtained a new letters patent dated 1627 that changed the designation of the earldom to “Earl of Haddington” from “Earl of Melrose” with precedency of the original letters patent (of 1619). The reason? It is not known actually why this was done.
S.S.