Extinct Peerages Question

[bx...@yahoo.com]

The new Earl of Lisburne's situation  (having a son out of wedlock with a woman he later married) started me thinking.

What peerages have become extinct with this same situation?

Also, what peerages have become extinct with the peer having had a son out of wedlock with no one else in remainder?

I think Melchett may fall into this category in the coming years when the current Baron dies.

Thanks.

Brooke

[marquess]

An excellent question Brooke! From my mental recollection I believe that the Normanby dukes of Buckingham are still represented by a line of baronets which were illegitimate issue of one of the dukes, this is also the case for the Earldom of Banbury, now being represented by an allegedly illegitimate line when the issue of the second or third earl was considered not be to his, they are now represented by the Viscount Knollys. The extinct earldom of Thanet is represented by the  barony of Hothfield, the current Barons Bolton are an illegitimate line from the now extinct dukes of Bolton, the current barons Leconfield are illegitimate descendents of the third earl, (earldom extinct)  the current barony of Wardington I think is in the same position as that of Melchett, there being a son born before wedlock and the barony is now  heading towards extinction. I should I manage to recall any more I will add.

Personally I would like to see the law governing English peerages adjusted to be in line with those governing Scottish peerages, one of the biggest threats to the peerage now is issue born out of wedlock; this will become an ever increasing trend with the erosion of marriage as a traditional institution. Just take a look at the viscountcy of Hill, I believe that nearly all the issue of the current  viscount have had issue outside of wedlock.

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

The heir to the Duke of Manchester will be a true test in time.

[Nick Kane]

Who says that marriage is in decline as a traditional institution? I think that there is some evidence of recovery. In any case, is it too much to ask that those in line to peerages take the trouble to marry? Marriage is the medium via which peerage transmissions to future generations occur and there is no reason why this tidy arrangement should be altered to suit those who have failed to turn their relationships into marriage.

[Michael Rhodes]

It's not the marriage is in decline it's that people are having families first and marrying afterwards. No good at all for succession to peerages.

[Andy Hatchett]

If the Peers and/or theri heirs think so little of their titles, why should anyone else care about them?

I honor those who keep them alive and care neither jot nor tittle about those who care so little for their family history as to allow a title to disappear by begetting out of wedlock.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[marquess]

To some extent I agree with Der Hertmiester, but I would like this thread to try and focus on Brooke's original question and in that vein: I can think of the barony of St Leonard extinct due to the last baron having children outside of wedlock, I believe the same prospect faces the Haden-Guest barony too. Are there anymore?

On Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:55:23 AM UTC+7, bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[Pat]

Earldom of Berkeley - Debretts describes the earldom as dormant or extinct because the only male descendants would appear to be the grandsons of 

Hastings Berkeley eldest son of the 7th Earl who was born before his parents marriage. Only one of the 3 grandsons has a son and he was born out of wedlock,

[Shinjinee]

Bolton B - is descended from an illegitimate daughter of the 5th duke of Bolton, who married an Orde, so doesn't quite fall into this category.  Descended from the dukes of Bolton, yes, but via an heiress, and an illegitimate one at that.  The 3rd Duke of Bolton also left illegitimate issue, but he had brothers so the money and title went elsewhere.     If we are talking Boltons, there may be descendants of those three illegitimate sons.

Another one

Wentworth-Fitzwilliam (Earls Fitzwilliam):   The 10th Earl Fitzwilliam's elder brother was declared illegitimate, because his parents didn't bother to marry properly until after his birth  (they married as minors but the marriage was not valid for the succession, and they married again after the birth of the elder son).  There was a court case in 1952-53.   The elder brother "Toby" left male-line issue, but the 10th Earl "Tom" left his estates to his stepdaughter Elizabeth who was in reality his illegitimate daughter (by the then-wife of the 2nd Viscount Fitzalan of Derwent; she divorced him to marry Fitzwillliam and become a Countess).  If Elizabeth had been born a boy, she would have become 17th Duke of Norfolk with no Howard descent in the male line.   The 10th Earl's grandson is Sir Philip Naylor-Leyland, 4th Bt md to Lady Isabella Lambton.

Another one
Berkeley E  - there are male-line descendants of the illegitimate sons of the Earl of Berkeley who married Mary Cole after the birth of his elder sons.  One of them was the older brother of the last Earl of Berkeley;  their parents married after her divorce from her previous husband.  The composer Lennox Berkeley if I recall correctly.  The last Earl had no sons, but he did have an elder brother who was illegitimate and he also had a nephew.  (But he chose the next legitimate Berkeley male - of the Spetchley branch - to inherit the castle).

By the way, Lord Langford's two elder sons (he also had 2 legitimate sons by the same wife) were also born out of wedlock, and have issue who although legitimate cannot inherit.  One of them is a professor.

I don't think that the laws on succession should be adjusted for existing English peerages.  We've had quite enough of that in Scottish peerages, with surrender and regrant until 1707 for favored peers (and refusal of the same for those not in favor, presumably).   The English system is better, where a new title and remainder can always be created. Not that many hereditary peerages are being created, and the last ones were all for members of the Royal Family.  Scottish peerages might not die out so easily, but many English, British and Irish peerages will.  There will always be Life Peers, I suspect.

And I think the English Parliament decided sometime in the 17th century that the Crown couldn't do the same for English baronies by writ (or other titles) . This was after  a Stafford baron who was too "low in estate" was forced to surrender his peerage, and a barony and eventually viscountcy Stafford created for a more favored heir (although also born of a mesalliance as considered in those days).  The current barons Stafford are descended from that more favored heir, with the despised heir  presumably dying without issue.   


Shinjinee

[Shinjinee]

I feel bad for the former Viscount Kimbolton (as I do for many others who were similarly deprived).  His story or rather that of his parents, is almost Trollopian. Unfortunately, it is fairly well-established that the Duke was already married when he married and fathered children.  The trustees might be able to vary the trust to provide for the former heir and his sister, but the title will pass to the brother of the Duke.

Shinjinee

[Shinjinee]

Thinking of the Manchester situation and of Trollope's novels (my best friend's husband was a Trollope scholar), I wonder if 

a) any other heir apparent to a peerage, believed to be legitimate, was later found to be illegitimate  because one or the other of his parents were already married (and the previous marriage not dissolved properly).  

I can't think of any cases here.  The 7th and 8th Earls Fitzwilliam had some issues with relatives claiming that the 7th Earl Fitzwilliam was not the biological child of his (married) parents, but that is a whole different story.  I think some Cavendishes felt the same way about "Hart" or the 6th Duke - believing that he was the child of the 5th Duke by his mistress.

Fortunately, the Earl of Euston (who married unsuitably) had no children, because he tried to divorce his wife on the grounds that she was already previously married at the time.  She countersued and proved that her first husband was himself married at the time, so she was actually not legally married. (Thanks to the late William Addams Reitwiesner for pointing this out to me nearly 18 years back).  


b) any holder of a peerage was found to be illegitimate - either because his parents were not properly married, or because his father could not have been his biological child

In the Russell case, the late 4th Baron Ampthill was declared legitimate by the courts, which means that even genetic evidence would be discounted - if the House of Lords accepted the court judgement to be superior to their own.  The late Lord Ampthill refused to take any tests, although his half-brother would have liked one.  (This was in the 1970s).  I assume that even in the future, if it is discovered that Geoffrey Russell was not the biological son of the 3rd Baron, the peerage would continue in the line of his second son and his son (his elder son the 5th Baron having had no daughters).

c) any claimaint to a dormant or extinct peerage was found to be descended from an illegitimate son/daughter -

I'm thinking of the Knollys cases, where the presumed son of the Earl of Banbury was refused by the House of Lords as was a descendant circa 1800, since their mother was openly living with another peer.  (So much for English law presuming that the mother's husband was the father if he lived in the British Isles. Not if the title claimed was a peerage...)   Their descendant became Viscount Knollys.

There was a wonderful story Man and Wife by Trollope about the peculiarities of Scottish law and how it was used by one woman to free another woman from a dreadful marriage....  A future earl of Stair found himself with two wives briefly - one by Scottish law and one  (Lady Laura Tollemache? or Manners?)  by English law.  That ultimately freed the English wife (as a victim of bigamy), but she could never remarry.  And the new earl divorced his first wife.  Fortunately, there were no children.  As for the 2nd Earl Russell, brother of Bertrand Russell, who also found himself a bigamist and was actually imprisoned for that, unlike Mr Dalrymple (later Lord Stair).

Shinjinee

[John Horton]

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Shinjinee
Sent: 12 September 2014 16:02
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Extinct Peerages Question

 

Thinking of the Manchester situation and of Trollope's novels (my best friend's husband was a Trollope scholar), …

 

An interesting topic in its own right, Castle Richmond and Mr Scarborough’s Family come to mind. I suspect there are others (there’s lot of Trollope I’ve not read).

 

[marquess]

Excellent post Shinjinee, another one to add to the list perhaps the earldom of Jellicoe, where the current earl has issue outside of wedlock and only has a half brother born in 66 in remainder to the earldom, but at least there is a well stocked viscountcy to fall back on.

On Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:55:23 AM UTC+7, bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[Shinjinee]

Oh thank you!  To add to my list of reads....

Shinjinee

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thanks to all who answered, particularly marquess, Pat and Shinjinee.

I think we can agree that this will be a problem for the Peerage (and Baronetage) going forward.

Brooke