Lord ELCHO / Thomas engagement

[Richard R]

From the Telegraph of 5 July 2025: Lord Elcho and Miss G.C.E. Thomas - The engagement is announced between Richard, son of the Earl of Wemyss and March, of Stanway, Gloucestershire, and the Hon Mrs Hesketh, of Bayswater, London, and Georgina, younger daughter of Mr and Mrs Nigel Thomas, of Bromham, Wiltshire.

Francis Richard CHARTERIS b 15 Sep 1984 Lord Elcho only s&ha of 13^th Earl of WEMYSS & [9^th] MARCH b 1948 and his 1^st w (her 1^st h) Hon Catherine Ingrid GUINNESS b 1952 (Hon Mrs Hesketh) d of 3^rd Baron MOYNE b 1930 and his 1^st w (her 1^st h) Ingrid Olivia Georgia 1931-2009 (Baroness Kelvedon) d of Maj Guy Richard Charles WYNDHAM 1896-1948 (gt gs of 1^st Baron LECONFIELD 1787-1869 who was s of 3^rd Earl of EGREMONT 1751-1836, etc).

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Just out of curiosity--

Lord Elcho has no brothers and one sister, Lady Mary Olivia (who has a son).  

Is she next in line for the earldom (behind her brother), as it is in the peerage of Scotland?

Thanks.

Brooke

[marquess]

To the best of my knowledge the earldom of March has a different remainder from that of Wemyss, in tailze. Thus the 2 earldoms would seperate.

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

According to wikipedia Wemyss reminder is "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten".
Line of succession:
1. (Francis) Richard Charteris, Lord Elcho (born 1984)
2. Hon. Andrew Charteris (born 1947)
3. Hon. Harold Charteris (born 1950)
4. Jamie Charteris (born 1958)
5. Felix Charteris (born 1992)
etc.

But March reminder is "to heirs male of his body, failing which to his other heirs male and of tailzie"
How does exactly such reminder work? 

[malcolm davies]

Gorgo,

           The remainder works in this way:-

  1.Whilst there were still heirs male of the body(ie male issue of the 1st Earl of March) that title descended to them.There were no male heirs of the body after the death of the 4th Duke of Queensberry.

  2.When the 4th Duke of Queensberry died,there were no male heirs of the 1st Earl of March as both his younger brothers and their male issue had died

  3.The title then descended to the 8th Earl of Wemyss the g g grandson of Lady Anne Douglas daughter of the 1st Duke of Queensberry and sister of the 1st Earl of March.It did not descend to Lady Jane Douglas daughter of the 2nd Duke of Queensberry as the tailzie did not designate her as an heir(if it had it would now be enjoyed by the Duke of Buccleuch).

  4.I do not know where the limitation goes when there is no male heir,except to say it goes the same way as the property accompanying it(Neidpath Castle).

[malcolm davies]

Gorgo,

           According to Burke’s Peerage,the remainder is,after heirs male and heirs male of the body,to the entail contained in the enfeoffment of the lands and Lordship of Neidpath to William Douglas,1st Earl of March.

[malcolm davies]

A further comment-Cracroft says the 6th Earl of Wemyss claimed the title as heir male of Lady Anne Douglas, implying the lordship can only go to males.

In that case Lord Elcho’s sister cannot inherit if he has no son-it will be the next heir male of Lady Anne Douglas.

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

Thank you very much, Malcolm

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

Then it looks like Marlborough's reminder a little bit. 
One more question: I wonder if there are no heirs male of Lady Anne Douglas around and Neidpath Castle is not in the family ownership who is a heir? Or is it mean that the title became extinct?

2025 m. liepos 8 d., antradienis 09:48:34 UTC+3 malcolm davies rašė:

[malcolm davies]

Gorgo,

           The enfeoffment acts as words of limitation to the title-so if Neidpath Castle is no longer in family ownership it should not matter.Neidpath Castle may well be in a trust to enable its preservation for example.