Royal Warrant of Precedence

[John Horton]

There's a Royal Warrant of Precedence in favour of Lady Fellowes here:

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60152/pages/9975

As a peeress, though, how much benefit does she gain from it?

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

[Turenne]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:46:38 PM UTC+1, john....@nottingham.ac.uk wrote:

There's a Royal Warrant of Precedence in favour of Lady Fellowes here:

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60152/pages/9975

As a peeress, though, how much benefit does she gain from it?

She doesn't; except for the fact that Lord Fellowes may be able to bear her arms on an escutcheon of pretence (a small shield on top of a larger one). She may also be angling to refer to herself as Lady Emma Fellowes, since the daughter of an earl takes precedence before the wife of a baron.

Both of the Fellowes' seem to be obsessed with rank and titles.

RL

 

[marquess]

Most interesting, I remember that one of Huntingdon collaterals missed out on being an earl's dau by a couple of months as too did one of the Coventry collaterals. I would have thought they would have had more cause to be raised to such a rank.

[John Horton]

My understanding is that it is more or less automatic … provided that an application is made.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/peerage-news/-/2Vz-6Px0rb4J.
To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.

[John Horton]

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Turenne
Sent: 23 May 2012 22:52

To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Royal Warrant of Precedence

>On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:46:38 PM UTC+1, john....@nottingham.ac.uk wrote:

>>There's a Royal Warrant of Precedence in favour of Lady Fellowes here:

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60152/pages/9975

>>As a peeress, though, how much benefit does she gain from it?

>She doesn't; except for the fact that Lord Fellowes may be able to bear her arms on an escutcheon of pretence (a small shield on top of a larger one).

 

He would have been able to do that in any case through his wife having no brothers.

 

She may also be angling to refer to herself as Lady Emma Fellowes, since the daughter of an earl takes precedence before the wife of a baron.

Although lower ranking, I believe that the (substantive) peerage takes precedence (as far as the title is concerned) over the higher ranking courtesy title.

Both of the Fellowes' seem to be obsessed with rank and titles.

Yet strangely ignorant of what’s what.

 

[Richard R]

It's hard to see what advantage there is to this other than to recognise the fact that she would have been an earl's dau had her father survived to succ his brother as earl. She may of course, as you say, prefer to be known as Lady Emma Fellowes (maybe hubby will assume the style of Lord Julian - however incorrect it may be, he's almost certainly been described as such by someone ignorant in such matters.)

 

There's no advantage in terms of precedence. She'd be better off as the former (ie divorced) wife of a baron. Daus of earls who are not married to peers rank above the wives of younger sons of marquesses and all baronesses.

 

I don't think she's the heraldic heiress to the Kitcheners, and so Lord Fellowes of S cannot place her arms on an escutcheon of pretence.

[Turenne]

On Saturday, May 26, 2012 7:54:42 AM UTC+1, Richard R wrote:

 

I don't think she's the heraldic heiress to the Kitcheners, and so Lord Fellowes of S cannot place her arms on an escutcheon of pretence.

Are you sure? Maybe she couldn't bear the comital arms, but  as the d. of Visc Broome, she could bear the Kitchener arms in pretence 'Gules a chevron argent surmounted by another azure between three Bustards proper on the centre chief point a bezant', with a label for difference.

RL

[Jonathan]

> Are you sure? Maybe she couldn't bear the comital arms, but  as the d. of
> Visc Broome, she could bear the Kitchener arms in pretence 'Gules a chevron
> argent surmounted by another azure between three Bustards proper on the
> centre chief point a bezant', with a label for difference.

Lady Fellowes is a granddaughter of Viscount Broome, rather than a
daughter. Does that make a difference?

[John Horton]

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Sent: 28 May 2012 10:25
To: Peerage News

Subject: Re: Royal Warrant of Precedence

The criterion is that she is the daughter of an armiger who is without male-line descendants.

[Richard R]

Which I don't think she is (ie she's not a heraldic heiress)

[John Horton]

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard R
Sent: 28 May 2012 20:22
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Royal Warrant of Precedence

 

Which I don't think she is (ie she's not a heraldic heiress)

 

I think she is. Where do we part company? Here’s my thinking:

 

(a)    The second earl was armigerous. I don’t know how the arms were granted, but I presume the grant wasn’t solely to the first earl.

(b)   If the second earl was armigerous, so was his son, Viscount Broome.

(c)    If Lord Broome was armigerous, so were both his sons, the third earl and the Hon. Charles Kitchener.

(d)   If the Hon. Charles Kitchener was armigerous AND he left no male-line descendants, then his daughters (or, in this particular case, his only daughter) are heraldic heiresses.

 

[Richard R]

Oh yes, I see, she's the heraldic hss of her father, not the Kitchener family's undifferenced arms?

[John Horton]

We’re now in the delicate area of whether people really do difference arms – now or ever. Immediate relatives of heads of families often do, but those some generations distant from the head of the family …? Also, look in quarterings (which come from heraldic heiresses) – how often does one see differences shown in these?

 

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard R
Sent: 28 May 2012 21:40
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Royal Warrant of Precedence

 

Oh yes, I see, she's the heraldic hss of her father, not the Kitchener family's undifferenced arms?

 

[hopewell]

Seems like a waste of tax-payers money to investigate all this! But then I'm an American so I'm well used to waste of taxpayers money........

[DB]

Until her uncle's death Lady Fellowes was the heiress of her father's
arms (Kitchener as granted to the 1st Earl differenced by a label for
an eldest son (Viscount Brome) in turn differenced by a crescent for a
second son (Hon Charles K)). On the death of the last heir male of the
1st Earl (her uncle the 3rd Earl) she would become heiress of the
undifferenced arms of Kitchener. As such her husband may bear those
arms on an escutcheon of pretence and her children quarter Fellowes
and Kitchener.

Discuss.

On May 29, 8:57 am, John Horton <John.Hor...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
> We're now in the delicate area of whether people really do difference arms - now or ever. Immediate relatives of heads of families often do, but those some generations distant from the head of the family ...? Also, look in quarterings (which come from heraldic heiresses) - how often does one see differences shown in these?

[John Horton]

Regardless of whether it’s a waste, I don’t know that any tax-payers’ money is used.

 

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of hopewell
Sent: 29 May 2012 18:04
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Royal Warrant of Precedence

 

Seems like a waste of tax-payers money to investigate all this! But then I'm an American so I'm well used to waste of taxpayers money........

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/peerage-news/-/XkgbVITrnBMJ.

To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.

[Richard R]

I've got it in my head that Lord Fellowes already quarters his wife's arms with his own.

[Turenne]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:40:58 AM UTC+1, Richard R wrote:

I've got it in my head that Lord Fellowes already quarters his wife's arms with his own.

You may be right, though sadly the excruciating Tattershall website doesn't feature his C of A:

http://www.tattershallwiththorpe.co.uk/peole/fellowes.htm

He received a grant of arms in 1998, though of course the last Lord Kitchener was still alive then. He surely wouldn't have quartered his arms with his wife's then; would he?

RL

[Richard R]

My understanding is the husband may quarter rather than, say, impale, the arms of the wife as a form of marshalling. Especially, as in this case, when the husband also takes the wife's name (although, as we've noted previously on this site, Lord Fellowes relinquished that addition when he took his peerage).