Lord Selkirk of Douglas (1942-2023)

[sven_me...@web.de]

He has died at the age of 81 only months after retiring from the Lords.

[BREMENMURRAY]

Lord Daer is now the 12th Earl of Selkirk

[BREMENMURRAY]

The Telegraph already have an online obit

[bx...@yahoo.com]

One of the few hereditary peers who disclaimed their title.

Brooke

[bx...@yahoo.com]

According to Wikipedia, he died on November 28, 2023.   The footnote lists the source as the obituary in The Times.

Brooke

[bx...@yahoo.com]

The new earl has 2 daughters, no sons.

The peerage is a Scottish one, so my question is : who is the heir to the earldom?

Thanks.

Brooke

[BREMENMURRAY]

The new Earls younger brother Charles Douglas Hamilton.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thanks, BREMENMURRAY.

I wasn't sure, since it's a Scottish peerage.

Brooke

[Henry W]

He disclaimed his peerage in 1994 due to being an MP at the time.  Whilst his succession was uncertain due to the unusual remainder of this peerage, he felt obligated to disclaim as he was a Conservative and the lose of one MP in a nearly hung parliament could have made all the difference to the government of the day.  Whilst the succession was uncertain, he still could not sit or vote in the Commons without disclaiming.

Due to the unusual remainder, I  think we may need to consider carefully the situation here.

The heir might not be Charles DOUGLAS-HAMILTON (born 1979), 2nd son of the late 11th Earl (disclaimed, 1942 - 2023) & younger bro of the 12th Earl (born 1978).  I agree he is the heir male of the 12th Earl, but the remainder is not that straightforward!

I think there is a chance that if the 12th Earl does not have male issue of his own, then the correct heir is in fact Lord William DOUGLAS-HAMILTON (born 2014), 2nd son of the 16th Duke of HAMILTON (& 13th of BRANDON).  It seems to me that these circumstances are not that dissimilar to the situation that arose in 1994 - the 10th Earl of SELKIRK died with no issue of his own, but had a nephew (Alasdair DOUGLAS-HAMILTON, born 1939).  Due to the remainder (i.e. 10th Earl had no issue), the line diverted to the second son of the then current & 14th Duke.  I think the same applies here.  It is all quite confusing (it required a ruling of the Lord Lyon in 1994).  See Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Selkirk - its all about the interpretation of provision 5 as numbered in the article.  I'm happy to be corrected of course!

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

The Earldom of Selkirk and its "shifting remainder" 



The Dukes of Hamilton and the Earls of Selkirk descend from the marriage in 1656 of Anne 



Hamilton, Duchess of Hamilton in her own right, to William Douglas, 1st Earl of Selkirk. He




subsequently changed his name to Hamilton and, in 1660, was created Duke of Hamilton,




but for his life only. 



In October 1688, the Duke surrendered his previous titles of Earl of Selkirk and Lord Daer and



Shortcleugh to the Crown and obtained a 'novodamus' or regranting of these titles, but with



a different remainder, one which is unique to the Scottish peerage. 












This remainder provided that:-













(a) the titles would pass to the heirs male of the 1st Earl of Selkirk's younger sons before the



     heirs male of his eldest son, who was heir apparent to his mother's Dukedom of Hamilton.










(b) if the person who would otherwise inherit the title of Earl of Selkirk was already Duke of 



     Hamilton, or would inherit the Dukedom at the same time as he would inherit the Earldom of



     Selkirk, then the title of Earl of Selkirk would pass to that Duke's next oldest surviving 



     brother.













(c) if the titles were ever held by a Duke of Hamilton, either because an Earl of Selkirk 




     succeeded as a Duke of Hamilton, or because provision (b) above became inoperable 




     because the heir was a Duke of Hamilton who had no surviving younger brothers, the title



     Earl of Selkirk would pass on that Duke's death to his second surviving son.




 






(d) if the titles had passed to a younger brother or younger son under (b) or (c) above, they



     would then pass to his heirs male on his death, BUT





 






(e) if such a younger son's or younger brother's heirs male died out, the title would not pass



     to his own younger brothers and their heirs male, but would instead revert to the senior



     male line with provisions (b) and (c) operating as before.





 






The effect of this remainder is that the dukedom of Hamilton descends as usual to heirs male,



but the earldom and its attendant baronies are diverted to the second son. Should this and



other cadet lines fail, the earldom of Selkirk reverts to the Duke of Hamilton at that time as



heir of the first Earl; but then the "special destination" of 1688 again diverts it to his younger



brother, if he has one: if not, it descends with the dukedom until such time as a qualified




younger son appears to carry on a new line of earls.













The contemplated situation has occurred twice - firstly in 1885, on the death of the 6th Earl



of Selkirk, who died without male issue, when the earldom thereupon reverted to the younger 



brother of the 12th Duke of Hamilton.  When this younger brother (the 7th Earl of Selkirk)




died unmarried in the following year, the Earldom of Selkirk passed back to the dukedom, with



which it remained united until the death of the 13th Duke of Hamilton in 1940. When the 14th



Duke of Hamilton succeeded in 1940, he had a younger brother, Lord Nigel Douglas-Hamilton,



who under the provisions of the remainder, became the 10th Earl of Selkirk.











Similar devices to prevent the mergers of peerages also occurred on other occasions within



the Scottish peerage. In 1674, Margaret, Countess of Rothes in her own right, married the 5th



Earl of Haddington. The marriage contract stated that the Earl would resign his own peerage in 



favour of their second and other younger sons, so as to keep it distinct from that of Rothes.



When the 5th Earl of Haddington died in 1685, he was succeeded in that peerage by his




younger son, whereas the eldest son had to wait until 1700 before he could succeed to the



earldom of Rothes.













Again, an attempt was made to keep separate the earldoms of Stair and Dumfries after the



next brother of the 2nd Earl of Stair married the Countess of Dumfries in her own right. The



second Earl obtained a novodamus in 1707 which had the effect of shifting the remainder to



the second and younger sons of his brother. In 1747, he executed a deed which nominated 



the son of his youngest brother to succeed him in the titles, but this was struck down by




the House of Lords in 1748, presumably on the ground that such deed had been executed




after the Act of Union of 1707. The heir nominated, John Dalrymple, did, however, eventually



succeed to the earldom of Stair in 1768, but not to the earldom of Dumfries, which went to



a collateral line.













"Shifting remainders" are confined to peerages of Scotland created before the Act of Union



in 1707. The use of such remainders in the peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom



were held to be invalid by the decision of the House of Lords in the case of the Buckhurst




peerage in 1876 (qv).



Reference:  https://www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/peers/peersS2.htm

[colinp]

He was page to the Dowager Duchess of Northumberland, Mistress of the Robes to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, at the 1953 Coronation

I always expected him to be made a Knight of the Thistle

[dpth...@gmail.com]

"..the titles would pass to the heirs male of the 1st Earl of Selkirk's younger sons before the heirs male of his eldest son.."


Instead of "heirs male" don't you mean "issue male"? "Heirs male" under Scots law generally includes collaterals, no matter how distant.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

This really does appear to be pretty complicated then.

It will be interesting to see who DPB Online lists as the heir presumptive once it updates the page.

Brooke

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

I am afraid I've taken it "word from word" from the works of Leigh Rayment.. He has been precise in his works.. So I won't be touching that..

[dpth...@gmail.com]

I actually thought that you were Leigh Rayment, but at any rate, here is what The Scots Peerage says: 

"a novodamus of the earldom of Selkirk to himself and his four younger brothers, John, George, Basil, and Archibald, successively, whom failing, 'in alios heredes masculos dicti Ducis de Hamilton et in literis suis parentibus suprascriptis . . . contentis.' If Charles or any of his brothers or the heirs-male of their bodies should succeed to the dukedom of Hamilton, it was provided that the earldom should always descend to the brother immediately junior to that one who should succeed to the dukedom and to the heirs-male of his body, whom failing,' ut supra dictum est pertinebit.'

Note that this source specifically says "heirs-male of his body", which is different than "heirs male".

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

Sadly not, Leigh passed away a few years ago now. I manage the Peerage and Baronetage updates. Sadly i didn't move it back to his original web address.

[colinp]

Henry, you have a point but I think I incline to the view that once the earldom shifts to a younger brother of the Duke of Hamilton (as happened in 1994) then the title descends to the yr brother's heirs male (ie the heirs male of his body) - it is only when his (ie the younger brother's) heirs male run out that the title then shifts to the then Duke of Hamilton's yr brother or the Duke if he has none.  So on that argument the hp is the new Earl's yr brother Charles.  I think it's not the failure of heirs male of the then Earl of Selkirk (as in the case of the present Earl)  that causes the "shift" but the failure of heirs male of the the original "shiftee" (ie in this case the 11th earl) if I can put it like that.

[marquess]

A most fascinating remainder, would that there were more Scot's Peerages with similar remainders in relation to Scottish dukedoms. Colinp's explaination is the most succinct 

[dpth...@gmail.com]

In the 1949 edition of The Complete Peerage, Volume XI, the remainder is given as follows:

to Charles and his four younger brothers in tail male, whom failing "in alios haeredes masculos dicti Ducis de Hamilton et in literis suis patentibus suprascriptus ... contentis" [Google translation: ""to the other heirs male of the said Duke of Hamilton and in his letters patent aforesaid . . . contained"].

"There was a proviso that, if the said Charles, or any one of his brothers, or the heirs male of their bodies should suc. to the Dukedom of Hamilton, the Earldom in such case "semper descendet ad Fratrem immediate juniorem illi qui ad titulum Ducis de Hamilton succedere contigerit et haeredibus masculis de ejus corpore; quibus deficientibus ut supra dictum est pertinebut" [Google translation: it shall always descend to the Brother immediately junior to him who happens to succeed to the title of Duke of Hamilton, and to the heirs male of his body; to whom it belongs to those who fail, as has been said above].

Thus there was a provision for what should happen if one of the original younger brothers or the heir male of their body should become Duke of Hamilton, but the only proviso The Complete Peerage cites for what was to happen when the issue of all these younger brothers became extinct, is the "to the other heirs male of the Duke of Hamilton".

Thus in 1885 the earldom was properly accorded to the 7th Earl, who was in fact heir male of his son-less brother, the 12th Duke, but had the 12th Duke had a son, that son would have been the heir male.

However, in the materials The Complete Peerage cites, there is no provision for what was to happen when this first heir male of a Duke of Hamilton died without issue. It has been accepted that the earldom would reappear in subsequent generations, but is there really a proviso allowing that? The provision which supposedly allows that actually may have applied only to the original brothers and their issue male,

Does anyone have the actual wording of the grant in the novodamus?

[dpth...@gmail.com]

It is hard to be clear in this complicated matter, but my points are:

1. The shift to the next brother is authorized IF one of the original brothers or the heirs male of their bodies becomes Duke of Hamilton, but should the shift to next brother apply to any subsequent Earls of Selkirk? If so, what is the proviso authorizing that?

2. When all isssue male of the original brothers became extinct, the earldom was to go to the "heir male" of the then Duke. It happens that that heir male was a brother, but if the then duke had had a son, should not that son have been considered "heir male"?

3. Where is the proviso for SUBSEQUENT "shifts"? Based on what The Complete Peerage cites, it is not clear to me that the earldom should have survived the childless death of the 7th Earl. (Granted that subsequent "shifts" were accepted by the relevant authorities, but they have accepted fictions before.

[marquess]

Is the matter not simplified by the following: Any earl of Selkirk can be suceeded by his son, and the male issue of that son can also succeed until the direct male line dies out. If the said earl had a second son could not that son and his male issue continue to succeed direclty? 

Only when the male line of any given earl is extinct can the peerage go to the duke, if he has no brother. The previous Master of Selkirk who was designated erroneously as the heir, was from recollection a descendant of the brother of one of the duke, not a direct descendent of a succeeding earl or his brother; hence the reason why  his claim was denied  and  the peerage went to the brother of the then sitting duke. 

Another point raised by the previous poster pertained to if the duke on succeeding had a son that predeceased him. Under such circumstances the next son would be heir to the earldom and duly succeed to it upon the death of his father. 

[malcolm davies]

Henry W,

               I agree that the succession is not as simple as it first appears.

  Before delving into that, some facts need to be recited.

  The 15th Duke of Hamilton died in 2010 leaving 2 sons:-

  Alexander,16th Duke b1978

  John,b1979

  The 16th Duke of Hamilton is married with 3 sons:-

  Douglas,Marquess of Douglas b2012

  William,b2014

  Basil,b2016

  The 11th Earl of Selkirk(Lord Selkirk of Douglas after disclaimer), who has just died, left 4 sons:-

  John,12th Earl of Selkirk,b1978

  Charles,b1979

  James,b1981

  Harry,b1981

  So far as I am aware Lord John,Charles,James & Harry are not married and have no male issue.If I am wrong about this would someone correct me.The 12th Earl is married with 2 daughters.

  The situation at present is that the hp is Charles as younger brother of the 12th Earl.

  However the following possibilities can occur:-

  1.The 12th Earl will have a son,in which case if he survives his father will become 13th Earl

  2.Charles as hp will succeed as 13th Earl if 1 does not occur and he survives his brother.

  3.If Charles dies before the 12th Earl,the next heir is James as younger brother(note neither Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton or Lord David Douglas-Hamilton were in this position as they both died before their brother the 10th Earl of Selkirk).If James does not survive the 12th Earl,the next heir is his brother Harry.

  4.If none of Charles,James & Harry survive the 12th Earl,irrespective of whether they have had male issue,the next heir is Lord John assuming he has survived the 12th Earl and his brother the 16th Duke is still living.

  5.If 4 has taken place and the 16th Duke predeceases the 12th Earl,the heir will be Lord William Douglas-Hamilton,second son of the 16th Duke.

  6.If 4 & 5 take place and the 17th Duke has predeceased the 12th Earl,the heir will be his second son assuming he has one.

  Since the current potential heirs are in their forties,the likelihood of them producing male heirs is diminishing,so the probabilities of Lord William Douglas-Hamilton, second son of the 16th Duke, succeeding to the Earldom increase over time.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Reading all of this, I'm wondering--

Is this the most complicated succession to a hereditary peerage, at least in recent memory?

Thanks.

Brooke

[bx...@yahoo.com]

We have an answer, according to the updated Selkirk page at DPB Online.

The heir presumptive is the younger brother of the new Earl, Hon. Charles Douglas DOUGLAS-HAMILTON,  b. 1979.   He is shown as married, but without children.

Next in line would presumably be the twin brothers of the Earl and hp, Hon. James Robert DOUGLAS-HAMILTON  and Hon. Harry Alexander DOUGLAS-HAMILTON (b. 1981), both shown as unmarried.

Brooke 

[malcolm davies]

Brooke,

             As to your first post above the Roxburgh patent is more complicated.

As to the second post,if Charles has a son,Charles must nevertheless survive the 12th Earl for that son to succeed him.
If not,James the next brother succeeds him instead.Had Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton not died before the 19th Earl,he would have succeeded to the Earldom instead of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton,and his son Alistair would be11th Earl instead.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

The Roxburghe remainder was the same as that to the earldom of Roxburghr, as provided by a regrant of the earldom allowing nominations by the grantee (1st earl of Roxburghe), which wound up being the following:

1) to his grandson William Drummond and his issue male, so long as William married his cousin Jean Ker; such issue male of William Drummond expired in 1805 with the death of the 4th Duke
2) to the younger sons, and their issue male, of William Drummond’s sister, the Countess of Wigtown, again so long as such son would marry Jean Ker [this proviso presumably applied only if William Drummond did not marry her]; the Wigtown heirs male were extinct by 1747
3) to the issue male of the daughters of Harry, Lord Ker; as of 1805, the 5th Duke of Roxburghe seems to have been the only issue male of the daughters of Harry, Lord Ker; his issue male is extant and currently in possession of the titles;
4) and finally to the heirs male of the 1st Earl of Roxburghe; the first in line as of the 1660s were the Kers of Fawdonside, descended from a brother of the great-grandfather of the 1st Earl; it seems unknown whether issue male in this line survived after the 1600s; if that line is extinct, then the next heirs male would succeed]


The Marlborough remainder, like the Roxburghe one, had four succesive remainders.

1st, the grantee's issue male.. there were none surviving

2nd, his daughters and their issue male, by primogeniture .. this remainder is still operative, and likely always will be, though the only eligible group still extant are the numerous issue male of Anne, Countess of Sunderland

3rd, the daughters of his daughters, by primogeniture, and their issue male ... the only extant line fitting this condition are the issue male of Lady Anne Egerton and her second husband, the 3rd Earl of Jersey

and 4th, to “all and every other issue", presumably by primogeniture

[dpth...@gmail.com]

As for the fourth Marlborough remainder, it appears that the first in line if that remainder were reached would be the daughters of the late Baroness Fauconberg and Conyers.

[colinp]

Obit in the Telegraph  Lord Selkirk of Douglas, Edinburgh Tory MP who was a courteous and able politician – obituary (telegraph.co.uk)

EXTRACTS:

Lord Selkirk of Douglas, Edinburgh Tory MP who was likeable and courteous with a touch of steel – obituary

He was deft at piloting Bills, but less good at party knockabout, being accused of ‘floating like a bee and stinging like a butterfly‘

Lord Selkirk of Douglas, who has died aged 81, was a socially liberal lawyer and aristocrat who was a hard-working Conservative MP for Edinburgh West for 23 years, a Scottish Office minister under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, and finally a front-bench spokesman in the Scottish Parliament….

Lord James’s family loyalties were severely strained by the antics of his brother, who died in 2010, being succeeded as 16th Duke by his son. The Scotsman once observed: “Lord James has … escaped personal scandal and upheld the highest standards of behaviour, while the family name was dragged through the law courts when his brother – the Duke – and his mother fought over custody of the Duke’s children, with the dowager duchess alleging the Duke and his estranged wife both had serious drink problems.”

Lord James’s share of the Hamilton fortune – reinforced during the Industrial Revolution by revenues from coal mining – was slim. He held a 1 per cent interest in the family estates, which he made over to his children….

James Alexander Douglas-Hamilton was born at Dungavel House, Lanarkshire, on July 31 1942, the second son of the 14th Duke, and Elizabeth, daughter of the 15th Duke of Northumberland. Aged 10, a kilted Lord James was a page at Elizabeth II’s Coronation, carrying the coronet of the dowager Duchess of Northumberland, who was Mistress of the Robes [sic – actually Mistress of the Robes to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother,].

In 1994, on the death of an uncle, he apparently inherited the Earldom of Selkirk. Although the succession was disputed by a cousin, Alastair Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James was, under the Peerage Act 1963, unable to vote in the Commons unless he disclaimed the title.

With Major’s parliamentary majority narrowing and a by-election in Edinburgh West a risky proposition, Lord James felt obliged to disclaim. Two years later, the Court of the Lord Lyon determined that he had been the true successor, not only to the earldom but to an estate worth £500,000. His cousin condemned the judgment as “a triumph for narrow law over reason and common sense”.

On Selkirk’s death, his eldest son, John Douglas-Hamilton, Master of Selkirk, born in 1978, succeeded to the title as the 12th Earl….

In 1995, with Forsyth now Secretary of State, Major promoted him to Minister of State, taking charge of the Scottish Home and Health Department. The following year he was made a privy counsellor, and a Scottish QC.

His electoral luck ran out in 1997 as every Scottish Tory lost their seat, Lord James going down by 7,253 votes to the veteran Liberal Donald Gorrie, who had first fought Edinburgh West in 1970.

Created a life peer as Lord Selkirk, he stood for the revived Scottish Parliament, and in the first Holyrood elections was elected a list MSP for the Lothians. One of only two Tories with Westminster experience, he became the Conservative group’s business manager and chief whip.

In 2000 he became Scottish Conservative home affairs spokesman, and after holding his seat in 2003 he served out his term as education spokesman, and deputy convenor of the Parliament’s education committee. He stood down at the 2007 elections.

Lord Selkirk served in 2012 as Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Sovereign’s personal representative.

He was at various times president of the International Rescue Corps, the Royal Commonwealth Society in Scotland, the Scottish council of the United Nations Association and the Scottish Amateur Boxing Association.

He was also honorary Air Commodore of No 2 (City of Edinburgh) Maritime HQ Unit, and 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron RAAF – which his uncle Lord David had commanded during the battle for Malta – and a member of the Royal Company of Archers, the Queen’s Body Guard for Scotland.

James Douglas-Hamilton married in 1974 Priscilla Buchan, daughter of the 2nd Baron Tweedsmuir and granddaughter of the novelist John Buchan. They had four sons, including twins.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas, born July 31 1942, died November 28 2023

[Henry W]

From Hansard of 29 November 2023

The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, on 28 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

-------------------------------------------------

Many thanks to Colin, Paul & Malcolm for putting me right on the heir - I did have similar thoughts shortly after my post, but decided that it was definitely better to have provoked the discussion, if only to remind everyone of how unusual this remainder is.  I've re-read everything carefully and now realise that it is NOT the second surviving son of the current Duke of HAMILTON who succeeds in the event of a "shift", but the eldest surviving brother of the current Duke.

I think the following is the current line of succession to the Earldom of SELKIRK:

0. 12th Earl of SELKIRK (born 1978)

1. Hon Charles Douglas D-H. (born 1979), brother of 12th Earl

2. Hon James Robert D-H. (born 1981), brother of 12th Earl

3. Hon Harry Alexander D-H. (born 1981), brother of 12th Earl

4. Lord John William D-H. (born 1979), brother of 16th Duke of HAMILTON & 2nd son of the 15th Duke

5. 16th Duke of HAMILTON (born 1978).

Should the 16th Duke pre-decease the 12th Earl (with the current Marquess of DOUGLAS and CLYDESDALE succeeding as 17th Duke and no other births/deaths occur), the following would become the line of succession:

0. 12th Earl of SELKIRK (born 1978)

1. Hon Charles Douglas D-H. (born 1979), brother of 12th Earl

2. Hon James Robert D-H. (born 1981), brother of 12th Earl

3. Hon Harry Alexander D-H. (born 1981), brother of 12th Earl

4. Lord William Frederick D-H. (born 2014), 2nd son of the 16th Duke

5. Lord Basil George D-H. (born 2016), 3rd son of the 16th Duke

6. 17th Duke of HAMILTON (born 2012)

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thank you, Henry, for this list of succession and its alternative.

And many thanks to all of you who posted on this thread, responding to my question regarding the hp.

Brooke

[Richard R]

I note that DPB online has amended their entry on the hp to include a second marriage, so my notes now read:

Hon CHARLES DOUGLAS, b 20 June 1979: m 1^st 2014, Katherine Elizabeth, elder da of Lt-Gen Sir Robert Alan Fry, KCB, CBE, of Sherborne, Dorset; m 2^nd 2023 Laura Catherine Bailey b 1989 reg Q2 Essex [d of Stephen A GOODEY by his 1988 m reg Q1 London to Catherine BAILEY].

[Shinjinee Sen]

Is there any information on the marriage of the new earl? He is said to have two daughters.

Shinjinee

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 16:10 Richard R <r_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I note that DPB online has amended their entry on the hp to include a second marriage, so my notes now read:

Hon CHARLES DOUGLAS, b 20 June 1979: m 1^st 2014, Katherine Elizabeth, elder da of Lt-Gen Sir Robert Alan Fry, KCB, CBE, of Sherborne, Dorset; m 2^nd 2023 Laura Catherine Bailey b 1989 reg Q2 Essex [d of Stephen A GOODEY by his 1988 m reg Q1 London to Catherine BAILEY].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/peerage-news/OT6RxMH1f8E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/2775c24b-773e-4979-a695-c2e3a92b8df4n%40googlegroups.com.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Hi Shinjinee.

According to DPB Online, he married Marlene Yvonne Van Baal (no additional information) in 2014.

Brooke

[Shinjinee Sen]

Thank you, Brooke, for that information. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/f055a9c4-8d60-49ac-87f9-0c3dd24a50cfn%40googlegroups.com.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Shinjinee, you're welcome.  Glad I was able to help!

[Shinjinee Sen]

I did a quick check for "Marlene Yvonne von Baal".

 I found a Marleen Douglas-Hamilton in academia. Previously worked as a lawyer. Now living in the Netherlands for the past few years

 I assume the new Earl of Selkirk and two daughters are also in the Netherlands.

Shinjinee

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/893355d0-a8a2-462c-aed6-53865f74e68en%40googlegroups.com.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

There is no address/location for the new Earl and his family shown by DPB Online, but I did just notice that the daughters are actually twins, born in 2018.

Brooke

[Richard R]

From the Times of 25 Jan 2024: DOUGLAS-HAMILTON Lord James, The Rt Hon Lord Selkirk of Douglas, a Thanksgiving Service will be held at Canongate Kirk, Royal Mile, Edinburgh, EH8 8BN, on 8th March 2024 at 1pm.

[Netty Leistra]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the Rt Hon Lord Selkirk of Douglas died on 29 November 2023. Memorial service: Canongate Kirk, Edinburgh on 8 March 2024.

Source: The Scotsman, 22 January 2024

[marquess]

Having been looking at this for the last few days I concur that if the current earl doesn't have male issue the next heir will be the 2nd son of the current duke of Hamilton. 

[Shachar Raz]

No, the current Earl has brothers who can inherit the title

[bx...@yahoo.com]

The Earl's 3 brothers (per DPB Online):

1. Hon CHARLES DOUGLAS (B. 1979)

2. Hon. James Robert (b. 1981)

3. Hon. Harry Alexander (b. 1981, twin)

Brooke

[Henry W]

See Colin's post of 30 Nov 2023 putting me right - the heirs male of the previous "shiftee" have not been exhausted yet.  I set out the line of succession on 2 Dec 2023.