Viscount Ranelagh

[Matthew Kilburn]

I wondered if anyone knew any background to the section in The Complete Peerage vol. 14, under Ranelagh, which provides evidence that the fourth Viscount Ranelagh actually misrepresented his relationship to his predecessors, that he was not in remainder to the viscountcy of Ranelagh and the barony of Jones, and that the writ of summons he received to the Irish House of Lords in 1759 constitutes a new peerage? I ask as this doesn't seem to have been taken up by any other resource that I can find.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Can you clarify what you mean? I cannot find a Volume 14 of Complete Peerage. The early Cokayne edition seems to be eight volumes, and the Gibbs edition has twelve volumes. The articles are in volumes 6 and 10, respectively. In neither of them, at least in the copies I have, is there any indication that the 4th Viscount misrepresented his connection, nor anything about a summons creating a new peerage.

Perhaps there is some edition which I do not have?

[dpth...@gmail.com]

"the Gibbs edition has twelve volumes"

More specifically, in the copy I have, the regular list of peerages ends with chapter XII, but Chapter XII is divided into XII/1 and XII/2. There is also a Chapter XIII which lists Peerages created 1901-1938.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

here are extracts from the Cokayne edition:

[S. S.]

Paul, the 2nd edition of the Complete Peerage was in 12 volumes with volume 12 split into 2 parts. The 13th volume (1940) contained peers created between 1901 to 1938. While volume 14 (1998) was published as the addenda and corrigenda till the year 1998.

Matthew, I attach the sections you were talking about in volume 14 below.

[S. S.]

Roger Jones (bur 21 Jan 1643/44) was created Baron Jones and Viscount Ranelagh on 25 Aug 1628 with the ordinary remainder to the heirs male of his body. See “Peerage of Ireland”, p 24 in Liber Munerum Publicorum Hiberniae and Journal of the Irish House of Lords, vol i, pp 81-82. He married 1stly, Hon Frances, dau of Gerald Moore, 1st Viscount Drogheda [I] and is said to have had two sons, viz. Hon Arthur and Hon Thomas in that order. There was only a daughter by the second marriage.

Arthur Jones became 2nd Viscount Ranelagh and in turn had a son and heir, Richard, who became 3rd Viscount Ranelagh and was later created 1st Earl of Ranelagh in 1677. He however dspms on 5 Jan 1711/12 when the peerages became dormant and were not claimed till 1759. The title thus passed to his 1st cousin-twice-removed, Charles Wilkinson Jones, now 4th Viscount Ranelagh [I], son and heir of Charles Jones, son and heir of Roger Jones MP, son and heir of Hon Thomas Jones aforesaid, thus Charles Wilkinson Jones was great-great-grandson of the 1st Viscount Ranelagh.

 Now here is what becomes interesting. Complete Peerage, vol xiv, pp 538-539 states that the said Charles Wilkinson Jones was son and heir of Charles Jones, of Lidlington, Bedfords (being 3rd cousin of the 3rd Viscount Ranelagh), by Elizabeth, daughter of James Douglas, Public Notary of Haddington, which Charles was only son and heir of Roger Jones, of Winchester, by Martha, daughter of Joseph Gulston DD, Dean of Chichester, which Roger was eldest son of Richard Jones, of Lidlington, by Christian Hackett. And that the said Charles Wilkinson Jones we know was born after 1720, his parents having married 28 March 1720 at Dalkeith in Midlothianshire and thus was never in line to the succession. His grandfather, Roger Jones, was descended only from the uncle of the 1st Viscount Ranelagh and NOT from Hon Thomas Jones, 2nd son of the 1st Viscount Ranelagh, who never existed in the first place.

It goes on that the said Charles Wilkinson Jones (or his supporters probably since he was very young when he apparently succeeded to the titles) concealed his descent and that when he took his seat in the Irish House of Lords by being given a writ of summons on 16 Oct 1759, that he had proven his claim to the title (we now know that to not be true). Also note that when the 3rd Viscount Ranelagh/1st Earl of Ranelagh died in 1712, the titles were not claimed till 1759. Everyone at the time probably thought (correctly) that the titles became extinct or at the very least without a suitable claimant. The Ranelagh title was thus revived in 1715 for Sir Arthur Cole, 2nd Bt, who was made Baron Ranelagh, son of Sir John Cole, 1st Bt, by Elizabeth, daughter of Lt-Col John Chichester, by Mary Jones, daughter of Roger Jones, 1st Viscount Ranelagh and thus aunt of Richard Jones, 3rd Viscount Ranelagh/1st Earl of Ranelagh. This may explain the initial hesitance (combined with the young age at the time of Charles Wilkinson Jones) of not claiming the titles earlier. 

Further, a pedigree was submitted in 1760 with Ulster King of Arms to the effect that the claimant, Charles Wilkinson Jones, was a great-grandson of Hon Thomas Jones, by Elizabeth Harris, which showed the said Hon Thomas to be the purported second son of the 1st Viscount Ranelagh. The pedigree was then also placed in the College of Arms in 1805 with no further documentary proof. The said Charles Wilkinson Jones died on 20 April 1797. He had two elder sons, viz. Charles and Thomas, who both succeeded as 5th and 6th Viscount Ranelagh respectively. The latter had an only son, Thomas Heron Jones, who succeeded as 7th Viscount Ranelagh in 1820 but dspl on 13 Nov 1885, thus making the Viscountcy (and the barony conferred therewith) now considered Extinct.

We now know that the claim presented by Charles Wilkinson Jones never was true and that the peerages (Viscountcy of Ranelagh and Barony of Jones) became EXTINCT in 1712 upon the death of the 3rd Viscount Ranelagh/1st Earl of Ranelagh. 

Matthew Kilburn note that any writ of summons to the Irish House of Lords does not constitute a barony in fee (i.e. a barony by a writ of summons) as it does in England. The only case, the Barony of de la Poer, is the sole anomaly in the Irish Peerage. This has already been established very well in peerage law. By the way, I also could not find a reference to anywhere else on the Ranelagh peerages and the circumstances presented in the Complete Peerage. CP cites a Mr Roger Powell as contributing the whole correction. This Mr Powell is a long-time genealogist contributed to both Burke's Peerage and Debrett's Peerage according to online sources.

 S.S.

[S. S.]

You can find volume 14 via FamilySearch by making a free account (http://www.familysearch.org/library/books/idurl/1/568116) as well as the other copies of the 2nd edition.

S.S.

[Matthew Kilburn]

Thanks, S.S. I'd assumed more people would have known what I was talking about when mentioning volume 14, being the volume of addenda and corrigenda that Peter Hammond edited for Alan Sutton Publishing in the 1990s. I'm intrigued that no-one else has picked up on Roger Powell's research. And yes, the note is curiously more open to Irish baronies in fee created by writ and descendable to heirs general existing, than judgements in Irish peerage law decided to be the case.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Very interesting. I do not dispute what is in the "Volume 14", but I do have questions about it. This is another perfect example of why claimants to peerages should be required to prove their claims, which was a subject in dispute in a recent thread here.

Who wrote or edited this Volume 14? I see that the Ranelagh entry in question was "contributed by Roger Powell", though I had not heard of him before. Presumably Gibbs was no longer involved in 1998.

The printed set I have ends with Volume 13, the volume of creations 1901-1938. I purchased it in the late 1970s or early 1980s, so has no volume 14 covering the period through 1998.

I note, too, that L G Pine, the noted peerage author, accepted the claims of the 4th Viscount and his successors when he published his New Extinct Peerage in 1972. Thus the assertion that the claim was fabricated must be more recent than 1972.

It would be interesting to know how Roger Powell determined what he calls the correct descent of the 4th Viscount. When one corrects as venerated a work as the Complete Peerage, it would seem more professional to show one's sources, and prove how you know what you say is true, and what Cokayne and Gibbs said was untrue.

That said, I don't have any reason to doubt what Powell said. I just wish he had been more forthcoming with proof.

One final note: the descent as stated by Cokayne and Gibbs shows that the 4th Viscount's grandfather was "Roger Jones (sometime M.P. for Winchester)". As far as I can discover, there never was a Roger Jones who was M.P. for Winchester, though there was a Roger Jones who represented Brecon 1713-1722; however, that Roger Jones, M.P., was too young (b.ca 1691) to have been grandfather of the 4th Viscount.

[S. S.]

]Volume xiv was edited by Peter W. Hammond, a historian I think he has written some on Richard III.

In the preface to volume xii, pt 2, there was a note that if funds permit, a list of all the addenda and corrigenda accumulated hitherto since the start of the work would be published. That did not happen however due to financial constraints. The material of addenda and corrigenda accumulated till that time was deposited with the House of Lords Record Office and annotated by H. Doubleday (one of the later editors of the Complete Peerage) and by Gibbs as well among others. Among these papers was an outline of peers and a volume edited by R. S. Lea, an acting editor for the work.

Hammond then took the deposited work and what he could find to bring the work up to do till the year 1995, including successions, new peerage creations (except life peerages under the Life Peerages Act, which were included in W. D. Rubinstein’s Biographical Dictionary of Life Peers, the most detailed you will find on life peers both under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Life Peerages Act till the 1990s). Interestingly, Rubinstein noted that he wished his work to be included as part of the Complete Peerage’s addenda/corrigenda volume, i.e. Hammond’s work, but the published did not reach a decision and Rubinstein separately published his work (see the preface and intro to his said work).

As for Powell’s assertions, as Hammond noted in the preface to volume xiv, the additional addenda and corrigenda he received were based upon good faith of the authorities supplying them and probably for space and reason of time. Remember, volume xiv is only for briefly updating the whole work, never for acting as the absolute last line of revision.

Powell’s research can probably be guessed based on what he stated. Since he mentioned the pedigree both deposited in the House of Lords and the College of Arms, it is safe to assume he spotted a discrepancy between those and other pedigrees (probably also in the College of Arms or elsewhere), thus leading him to the discovery of this error. Indeed, a county history can also point out this error in older editions, which sometimes tend to be quite accurate (or even the Harleian Society or other publications). A mystery to solve for another day perhaps.

I would advise one thing of caution however with both Cokayne’s work and Gibb’s and subsequent editors is that if we always place them on a pedestal of accuracy, we risk accepting narratives and peerage info that simply turns out to be inaccurate. I already proved that with the errors in dates of creation sprinkled throughout the work using J. C. Sainty’s references of the original documents; another is the sometimes (and currently very annoying) problem that many of the medieval articles are written rather loosely with conjectures and lack of evidence as the latter centuries’ peerages. Much work is still needed to be done. One particular and glaring problem is that volumes i-iv (as mentioned in Hammond’s preface to vol xiv) suffers from a distinct drop in quality compared to the rest of the volumes. Indeed, if you do compare volume iv to say volume vi, you will find the length, breadth and construction of info contained therein are quite different. The peerage is as always a work in progress, least we can contribute here and there.

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Thanks.

"I would advise one thing of caution however with both Cokayne’s work and Gibb’s and subsequent editors is that if we always place them on a pedestal of accuracy, we risk accepting narratives and peerage info that simply turns out to be inaccurate."

That is very true. I have detected numerous errors in Complete Peerage myself, and have pointed them out on various of my web pages. When I do so, however, I also point out the evidence I used to determine that they were errors. Merely saying something was incorrect is less than useless unless proof is supplied.

[marquess]

Can you please give us some examples of these errors?

[S. S.]

marquess, other than the frequent errors in peerage dates of creations, you have examples of marriage and relationships. For example, the 1st Baron Saye and Sele's marriage in CP only mentions he married a woman named Emmeline, but omits the fact he married 1stly a woman named Joan and then Emmeline subsequently. The lineage of Roger de Clifford, Lord Clifford (d 13 July 1389) is descended from William Clifford (d 1438), while CP gives him as descending from Lewis, a brother of the said William. The marriage of Elizabeth and Lord Atholl is given before Michaelmas 1391, but the marriage actually took place before September 1388. That is 2 examples that come to my mind from recent notes. 

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

" The marriage of Elizabeth and Lord Atholl is given before Michaelmas 1391, but the marriage actually took place before September 1388. "

Thus it did take place before Michaelmas 1391, as CP says; apparently someone has been able to narrow it down even further. I wouldn't call this a correction.

"The lineage of Roger de Clifford, Lord Clifford (d 13 July 1389) is descended from William Clifford (d 1438), while CP gives him as descending from Lewis, a brother of the said William"

I don't quite understand what you mean. Roger who died 1389 is descended from someone who died 1438, or his brother?

I have it as:

Robert de Clifford (ca 1274-k.a.Bannockburn 24 Jun 1314),summoned to Parliament from 1299 as Lord [de] Clifford; m.Maud de Clare, gdau of Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, and later wife of Lord Welle
|
Robert, 3rd Lord Clifford (5 Nov 1305-20 May 1344); m.Jun 1328 Isabel de Berkeley (d.25 Jul 1362), dau of 2nd Lord Berkeley, and later wife of Lord Musgrave
|
Robert, 4th Lord Clifford, d.1345; m.Apr 1343 Eufeme, dau of Lord Nevill (d.1393)
|
Roger, 5th Lord Clifford (10 Jul 1333-13 Jul 1389); m. Maud Beauchamp (d.1403), dau of Earl of Warwick

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Here is one example of a Cokayne error, which even he would have sussed out had he paid closer attention to it:

In The Complete Baronetage, he says that Sir John Grey-Egerton, 8th Bt., was born 11 July 1776. On the other hand, Burke's says he was born 14 May 1749.

Both dates must be incorrect, though I have no evidence of what the correct date is.

His father died in 1786, aged 54, so was unlikely to have had a son born in 1749 He was clearly older than his next brother, who all agree was born 6 January 1767. Thus Cokayne's "11 July 1776" date is not merely a typographical error for "11 July 1766".

This is one example of error I have found. However, all such works, even modern ones, have such errors. There seems no way to avoid an occasional one. I find it best to begin with assuming that facts asserted in CP are correct, unless proof is found that they are incorrect, but, in order to persuade me, the proof must be shown, not just a bare assertion that they are incorrect.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

That Egerton error can be seen pointed out on my Egerton page at https://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/egerton.html

One other example is this: In CP, sub Berkeley, there is a footnote which identifies Mary Hastings, wife of the 6th Lord Berkeley, as the Mary Hastings who was sought in marriage by the Czar of Russia. This is a well-known story, but CP identifies the wrong Mary Hastings. The Czar in question was Ivan IV, who was not even born until 1530, while Mary, Lady Berkeley, married in 1526 and died 1533. The Mary who interested Ivan was this Mary's niece, daughter of the 2nd Earl of Huntingdon.

See Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Hastings

and also my Hastings page at

https://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/hastings.html

[dpth...@gmail.com]

It turns out that the Egerton mistake was, or almost was, a typrographical error after all.

According to Gentleman's Magazine, 1766, page 342:

Births
10 July 1766:
"Lady of Philip Egerton, of Broxton, Cheshire, -- of a son and heir."

So, instead of 11 July 1776, he was born 10 July 1766. This however throws into doubt the 6 January 1767 birthdate given for his next brother.

On Friday, August 2, 2024 at 11:32:03 AM UTC-5 dpth...@gmail.com wrote:

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Based on the information posted here, and some private messages from a reader of this Group, below are the relevant parts of the corrected Jones/Ranelagh genealogy. The new, corrected genealogy relies in large part on the Visitation of Bedfordshire 1634, and various wills of members of the Jones family. I hope that I have worked it all out correctly!

 

Henry Jones, of Middleton; m. ___ Daniel

1.Sir Roger, Alderman and Sheriff of London; m.Anna [Jane] Hackett, sister of Sir Cuthbert Hackett, Lord Mayor of London

 … (irrelevant issue omitted)

1.5.Richard, of Littlington [Lidlington], Beds; m.Christian Hackett, dau of Roger H, and niece of Sir Cuthbert H (above)

1.5.1.Roger (b.ca 1619, fl 1692, d.by 1695); m.1674 Martha Gulston

1.5.1.1.Charles, of Lidlington; m.1720 Elizabeth Douglas

1.5.1.1.1.Charles, de facto [but incorrectly] 4^th Viscount Ranelagh, d.20 Apr 1797; in 1759 he claimed and [incorrectly] established his right to the Viscountcy of Ranelagh, claiming descent from a younger son of the 1^st Viscount, and sat in the Irish Parliament; he and his successors were accorded the Viscountcy and Barony until extinct in 1885; he m.6 Jan 1761 Sarah Montgomery (bur 3 Jan 1812)

1.5.1.1.1.1.Charles, de facto [but incorrectly] 5^th Viscount Ranelagh (29 Oct 1761-20 Dec 1800)

1.5.1.1.1.2.Thomas, de facto [but incorrectly] 6^th Viscount Ranelagh (3 Feb 1763-4 Jul 1820); m.1^st 21 Aug 1804 Caroline Elizabeth Stephens (dsps 17 Jun 1805), nat. dau of Sir Philip Stephens, Bt.; m.2^nd 13 Sep 1811 Caroline Louisa Thompson (d.25 Nov 1866), nat. dau of Col. Lee

1.5.1.1.1.2.1.Thomas Heron, de facto [but incorrectly] 7^th Viscount Ranelagh (9 Jan 1812-13 Nov 1885)

1.5.1.1.1.2.1.1.[illegitimate] Alice, d.11 May 1942; m.16 Sep 1899 John Richard Brinsley Norton, 5^th Lord Grantley (1 Oct 1855-5 Aug 1943)

1.5.1.1.1.2.2.Arthur (1 Feb 1818-28 Jun 1820 [per Debrett’s 1828; Lodge 1861 says 27 Jun 1820])

1.5.1.1.1.2.3.Barbara (8 Jun 1813-27 May 1894); m.26 Jul 1834 Johann Bernhard Gf von Rechberg (17 Jul 1806-26 Apr 1899)

1.5.1.1.1.2.4.Mary Matilda (1815-    )

1.5.1.1.1.2.5.Henrietta (16 Nov 1819-    )

1.5.1.1.1.3.Richard (24 Mar 1764-27 Nov 1803); m.14 Sep 1785 Sophia Gildard (d.27 Nov 1803)

1.5.1.1.1.4.John (15 Jan1768-d.young)

1.5.1.1.1.5.Benjamin (8 Sep 1770-    )

1.5.1.1.1.6.John (1 Jun 1772-    ); m.Eliza Cane

1.5.1.1.1.7.Roger, d.young

1.5.1.1.1.8.William Richard Montgomery (13 Sep 1776-    )

1.5.1.1.1.9.Alexander Montgomery (9 Mar 1778-8 Jan 1862); m.Caroline Palmer (d.28 Nov 1858)

1.5.1.1.1.9.1.Alexander Montgomery (13 Sep 1812-5 Apr 1883)

1.5.1.1.1.9.2.Robert Molesworth (1814-Colombo 11 Aug 1856)

1.5.1.1.1.9.3.Henry Herbert Montgomery (1831-11 Dec 1851)

1.5.1.1.1.9.4.Caroline Sarah Sophia (Sep 1815-5 Aug 1877); m.15 May 1834 Vcte Henri de Vismes (19 Dec 1808-2 Sep 1874)

1.5.1.1.1.9.5.Mary (3 Aug 1817-    ); m.19 May 1860 Rev. John Williams (d.1879)

1.5.1.1.1.9.6.Louisa Hood

1.5.1.1.1.9.7.Katherine Louisa

1.5.1.1.1.10.Roger (30 Mar 1780-d.young)

1.5.1.1.1.11.Mary (15 Jun 1766-25 Feb 1814); m.27 Sep 1793 Hon. Robert Molesworth (16 Apr 1768-Apr 1814)

1.5.1.1.1.12.Sarah (7 Sep 1767-    )

1.5.1.1.1.13.Margaret (9 May 1769-d.young)

 … (irrelevant issue omitted)

2.Rt. Rev. Thomas, Bp of Meath, Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, d.10 Apr 1619; m.Margaret Purdon

2.1.Roger JONES, of Durhamston, cr 1628 Viscount Ranelagh and Baron Jones of Navan [I], d.1643; m.1^st Hon. Frances Moore (d.23 Nov 1620); m.2^nd Catherine Longueville (d.ca 1627), niece of 1^st Viscount Falkland

2.1.1.Arthur, 2^nd Viscount Ranelagh, d.7 Jan 1670; m.before Nov 1630 Lady Katherine Boyle (22 Mar 1614-23 Dec 1691)

2.1.1.1.Richard, 3^rd Viscount Ranelagh, cr 1677 Earl of Ranelagh (8 Feb 1641-5 Jan 1712); m.1^st 28 Oct 1662 Hon. Elizabeth Willoughby (d.1 Aug 1695); m.2^nd 9 Jan 1696 Margaret, Dowager Bss Stawell (bap 18 Apr 1672-21 Feb 1728), dau of James Cecil, 3^rd Earl of Salisbury; on his death the Earldom expired, and the other titles remained dormant until 1759, as below; issue of 1^st m.:

[on the death of the 3^rd Viscount/1^st Earl, the titles became extinct; however, after a lapse of almost 50 years, during which “Ranelagh” was used as a title by another family, the Barony and Viscountcy were claimed by one Charles Jones, who claimed to descend from Thomas, yr son of the 1^st Viscount; the claim was accepted and he and his descendants were accorded the titles until extinct in 1885; however, it has recently been shown that his descent was from an uncle of the 1^st Viscount, as above.]

2.1.1.1.1.Edward, Lord Navan (2 Oct 1675-bur 29 Mar 1678)

2.1.1.1.2.Elizabeth, d.10 Apr 1758; m.12 Jun 1684 John Fitzgerald, 18^th Earl of Kildare (1661-9 Nov 1707)

2.1.1.1.3.Frances (1674-19 Feb 1715); m.ca 23 Apr 1698 Thomas Coningsby, Lord Coningsby [later, 1719, Earl of Coningsby] (1656-1 May 1729); a claim to the Barony of de Ros, inherited through Frances’ mother, devolved on her descendants, in whose favor the abeyance was terminated in 1806

2.1.1.1.4.Katharine

2.1.2.Mary, d.by 3 Nov 1673; m.Hon. John Chichester (22 Feb 1609-1643/8)

2.2.Margaret, d.3 Jul 1615; m.Gilbert Domvile

2.3.Jane; m.Henry Piers, of Tristenagh

On Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-5 Matthew Kilburn wrote:

[dpth...@gmail.com]

As Roger Powell's footnote says, if the 1759 sitting created a new barony by writ, then the right to it sits with the descendants of Hon. Barbara Jones, wife of Graf von Rechberg.

This is just as a fun exercise. I am not expert enough to argue whether a new Barony was in fact created.

Barbara had only one child, a son. Her son, in turn, had two sons who died in infancy, and four daughters, of whom one never married.

The representation would be among the issue of the three married daughters:

1. Therese Gräfin von Rechberg (Vienna 14 Jan 1865-Mnisek, Bohemia 4 Apr 1936); m.Enns 21 Sep 1890 Theoderich Frhr Kast v.Ebelsberg (Nedelischt, Bohemia 12 Jun 1858-Prague 4 Aug 1931)

She is now represented by the three daughters of Llewellyn Freiherr Kast von Ebelsberg, who died in 2021. They all seem to be resident in Argentina now.

2. Paula Gräfin von Rechberg (Althart, Moravia 12 Dec 1865-Schloß Steinsbrunn 15 May 1942); m.Vienna 5 May 1888 Otto Gf v.Fünfkirchen (d.Vienna 30 Oct 1946)

She is now represented by issue, if any, of Eleonore Gfn von Fünfkirchen (Pardubitz 17 Feb 1921-Vienna 17 May 1982), who married 1942 (div 1952) Walter Tiedt (Stettin 3 Jan 1899-USA 1960); if she had no issue, then this line is extinct

3. Maria Gräfin von Rechberg (Althart 9 Apr 1867-Enns 3 Apr 1942); m.Vienna 15 Apr 1890 Joseph Gf v.Walderdorff (Wiesbaden 19 Jul 1862-Bad Gleichenberg, Styria 6 Aug 1933)

Her issue is now extinct.

On Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 11:16:42 PM UTC-5 S. S. wrote:

[dpth...@gmail.com]

A reader of this group has sent me a private message with some additional information, based on research he has done.

Barbara Rechberg's sister, Hon. Henrietta Jones, apparently married in 1842 Antonio de Pasquali, and died in 1864. It is still unknown whether she had any children, but if she did, then her representatives, if any are still extant, would possess a ½ interest in any Barony which might have been accidentally created in 1759.

[Matthew Kilburn]

Thank you - this is all very welcome.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention! I had not known about the Powell information in the 1990s supplement until your post.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Michael Andrews-Reading, who supplied the earlier information I mentioned, has located the will of Henrietta Pasquali, in which she mentions her brother Lord Ranelagh and her sister Barbara. She listed one child, Joseph Pasquali.

He was also able to discover that Joseph Pasquali dsp on 17 June 1875.

Thus the descendants of Barbara Gräfin von Rechberg, whom I discussed in an earlier post, would be the heirs to any Barony accidentally created in 1759.

[Matthew Kilburn]

Thank you very much indeed.

[S. S.]

I have to reiterate that there is no such thing as a writ of summons in the rank of a barony or otherwise to the Irish House of Lords thus creating a barony in fee or any peerage in this case. The only example, the Barony of de la Poer, was a one-off decision and is the sole example of this ever occurring. The simple answer is that no peerage whatsoever has been created by the writ of summons of 1759. 

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Perhaps... I don't claim to be an expert, but as Powell said in the note you yourself posted:

"...it is difficult to see how Charles Jones sat in the House of Lords [I.] unless there was a new creation in 1759, as he did not do so by hereditary right."

[S. S.]

I never agreed with Powell's statement on a supposed barony being created. Powell is not aware of peerage law as much as he was of investigating genealogy. Simply put, the Irish House of Lords made a mistake in the writ of summons since the claimant was never a peer in the first place. I would put this along the same vein of erroneous summons as baronies created by error by writ of summons, such as the son and heir of the one of the Dukes of Bolton. Of course, that actually constituted an actual creation of a barony of fee. 

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

In case this is of interest to anyone:

18th Century memoirs frequently mention Ranelagh Gardens, one of the two major "pleasure gardens" frequented by high society of the day. (The other was Vauxhall.)

I never before bothered to see where it got its name, but apparently it was built on the site of Ranelagh House, built by the Earl of Ranelagh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranelagh_Gardens