Fellowes / Kitchener

[William]

I am told that Lord Fellowes is anxious that the Kitchener title be
able to pass through the female line. Does he have a valid argument?
Is there a web thread about this?

[Turenne]

He really is becoming tremendously full of himself....

Here's the special remainder to the viscountcy:

11 July 1902 V. Kitchener of Khartoum and of the Vaal in the Colony of
Transvaal, and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk – Horatio Herbert
Kitchener (1st L. Kitchener of Khartoum) (died 5 June 1916) ("and in
default of such issue with remainder to the first daughter of the said
Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, lawfully begotten, ...
and after her decease with remainder to the heirs male of her body,
lawfully begotten, ... and in default of such issue with remainder to
the second, third, fourth, and every other daughter of the said
Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, lawfully begotten, and
the heirs male of the body and respective bodies of such daughters
severally and successively one after another as they shall be in
seniority of age and priority of birth, and in default of such issue
with remainder to Henry Elliott Chevallier Kitchener, Esquire, Colonel
in the Army, brother of the said Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of
Khartoum, with remainder to the heirs male of his body, lawfully
begotten, and in default of such issue with remainder to Frederick
Walter Kitchener, Esquire, Major-General in the Army, another brother
of the aforesaid Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, with
remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten") (Gazette
29 July 1902)

and the earldom:

27 July 1914 E. Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome in the County of
Kent (& V. Broome of Broome in the County of Kent & L. Denton of
Denton in the County of Kent) – Horatio Herbert Kitchener (1st V.
Kitchener of Khartoum) (died 5 June 1916) ("with remainder in default
of such issue to his first, second, third, fourth and every other
daughter lawfully begotten, and to the heirs male of the body and
respective bodies of such daughters severally and successively one
after another as they shall be in seniority of age and priority of
birth, and in default of such issue and after the death of every such
daughter to Henry Elliott Chevallier Kitchener, Esquire, Colonel on
the retired list of the Army, a brother of the said Horatio Herbert,
Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum, and the heirs male of his body
lawfully begotten and to be begotten, nd in default of such issue and
after the decease of the said Henry Elliott Chevallier Kitchener to
the heirs male of the body lawfully begotten of Sir Frederick Walter
Kitchener, K.C.B., late Lieutenant-General in the Army, deceased,
another brother of the said Horatio Herbert, Viscount Kitchener of
Khartoum") (Gazette 28 July 1914)

RL

[Jonathan]

On 24 Sep, 17:33, William <william.arbuth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am told that Lord Fellowes is anxious that the Kitchener title be
> able to pass through the female line. Does he have a valid argument?
> Is there a web thread about this?

That was a few years ago now, there was a discussion on the Hereditary
Peerage Association's website:
http://www.hereditarypeers.com/debate.htm

They wanted legislation that would somehow override the remainder on
peerages so that wherever it was previously "heirs male" would for
future successions be male or female heirs. Of course, the title of
Earl Kitchener would pass to Lady Fellowes rather than becoming
extinct in that case.

Does he have a valid argument? As for it applying retrospectively to
all titles, not really. And if there are ever any more hereditary
peerages created, there is no reason why they can't all have remainder
to heirs male or female as standard. No new law is needed.

[marquess]

His argument pertains to himself personally, the only way the title
could be prolonged is if a new patent was granted with a new
remainder, the current earl would just be created earl Kitchener
again. Not likely to happen though! I am sure peerages of equally
significant military leaders have become extinct and were not re-
granted even in an age when hereditary peerages were still being given
out.

[Michael Rhodes]

Not a cat in Hell's chance.

[Richard R]

The eagle-eyed amongst us will have noticed that Lord Fellowes has
reverted to the surname FELLOWES, having previously changed his name
to KITCHENER-FELLOWES in 1998:

LONDON GAZETTE 17 January 2011:
The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal
of the Realm dated in the forenoon of 12 January 2011 to confer the
dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon Julian
Alexander FELLOWES, Esquire, by the name, style and title of Baron
Fellowes of West Stafford, of West Stafford in the County of Dorset.

LONDON GAZETTE 10 November 1998:
COLLEGE OF ARMS
Notice Code: 1107
Queen Victoria Street, London EC4V 4BT
Notice is hereby given that Julian Alexander Fellowes of 15 Moore
Street in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and his wife
Emma Joy on their own behalf and on behalf of their son Peregrine
Charles Morant Kitchener Fellowes by Deed Poll dated 15th October
1998, and intended to be enrolled in the College of Arms have assumed
and adopted the surname of KTICHENER-FELLOWES in lieu of their former
surname of Fellowes and intend henceforth upon all occasions to sign
and subscribe themselves and to be called and known by the names of
Julian Alexander Kitchener-Fellowes, Emma Joy Kitchener-Fellowes and
Peregrine Charles Morant Kitchener Kitchener-Fellowes in lieu of their
former names of Julian Alexander Fellowes, Emma Joy Fellowes and
Peregrine Charles Morant Kitchener Fellowes.


On Sep 25, 7:45 am, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[Jonathan]

On Sep 25, 10:06 am, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The eagle-eyed amongst us will have noticed that Lord Fellowes has
> reverted to the surname FELLOWES, having previously changed his name
> to KITCHENER-FELLOWES in 1998:

Indeed. I speculated this might be due to the strength of the Fellowes
"brand" following his recent success in the world of television. As I
said back in November, I was hoping for a new Kitchener title:
https://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news/browse_thread/thread/a24ce8049a78f5bb/ba1c7293b58b0249

[marquess]

He could have chosen a life peerage title of Fellowes Kitchener!

> said back in November, I was hoping for a new Kitchener title:https://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news/browse_thread/thread/a24...

[Richard R]

Yes. My point is he clearly decided not to.

> > said back in November, I was hoping for a new Kitchener title:https://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news/browse_thread/thread/a24...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jonathan]

Now I see there have been a number of articles in the press over the
last week or so where Fellowes is again pushing for titles to be
inherited by females - I don't know if that was what prompted
William's original message.

In today's Express:

DOWNTON ABBEY: MISOGYNY AND THE ARISTOCRACY
http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/274080/Downton-Abbey-Misogyny-and-the-aristocracy

"AS Downton Abbey’s creator tries to change a centuries-old law that
still stops women inheriting family titles, we reveal why they have
always been written out of an inheritance..."

Unfortunately the article gets quite confused, equating inheritance of
peerages with that of the Crown. As we all know, they are not the
same. If the Kitchener title followed the same male preference
primogeniture, Lady Fellowes would be able to inherit it.


And yesterday they had:

DOWNTON’S CREATOR FIGHTS FOR WIFE’S TITLE
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/273915/Downton-s-creator-fights-for-wife-s-title

"DOWNTON Abbey creator Julian Fellowes has won the backing of
aristocracy experts Burke’s Peerage in his fight to overturn
“outrageous” rules that stop women from inheriting titles. [...]"


From last week, the Guardian's take (perhaps unsurprisingly):

Better the Dahls' modest proposal than Julian Fellowes' peer pressure
The Downton Abbey creator's call for inheritance reform couldn't have
anything to do with his new series, could it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/17/david-mitchell-julian-fellowes-dahl

And the Mail:

Is Downton's creator the biggest snob in Britain?
In this personal view, A.N. Wilson argues that Julian Fellowes - who's
furious his wife can't inherit an earldom - has an absurd obsession
with class
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2037077/Downton-Abbeys-creator-Julian-Fellowes-biggest-snob-Britain.html


Sorry for all the links, but it's a lot of text to include in the post
directly.

[marquess]

British titles have always followed the remainder laid down in the
patent, the Kitchener earldom had a special remainder that should have
given it a greater chance of survival than a normal peerage. I have
personally always had the view the that the Lucas of Crudwell barony
has the best remainder of the non Scottish peerages, with remainder to
heirs male in failure or that to heirs female without division. Had
the Kitchener peerage been given such a remainder to the issue of the
first earls brothers then there would be no danger of extinction. Or
if one is obsessed with preserving he male name, the with remainder to
heirs male in tail or to the issue or one's grand father. Ashtown
comes to mind.

On Sep 28, 5:55 pm, Jonathan <jra...@gmail.com> wrote:A> Now I see

there have been a number of articles in the press over the

> last week or so where Fellowes is again pushing for titles to e

> inherited by females - I don't know if that was what prompted
> William's original message.
>
> In today's Express:
>

> DOWNTON ABBEY: MISOGYNY AND THE ARISTOCRACYhttp://www.express.co.uk/features/view/274080/Downton-Abbey-Misogyny-...

>
> "AS Downton Abbey’s creator tries to change a centuries-old law that
> still stops women inheriting family titles, we reveal why they have
> always been written out of an inheritance..."
>
> Unfortunately the article gets quite confused, equating inheritance of
> peerages with that of the Crown. As we all know, they are not the
> same. If the Kitchener title followed the same male preference
> primogeniture, Lady Fellowes would be able to inherit it.
>
> And yesterday they had:
>

> DOWNTON’S CREATOR FIGHTS FOR WIFE’S TITLEhttp://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/273915/Downton-s-creator-fights-f...

>
> "DOWNTON Abbey creator Julian Fellowes has won the backing of
> aristocracy experts Burke’s Peerage in his fight to overturn
> “outrageous” rules that stop women from inheriting titles. [...]"
>
> From last week, the Guardian's take (perhaps unsurprisingly):
>
> Better the Dahls' modest proposal than Julian Fellowes' peer pressure
> The Downton Abbey creator's call for inheritance reform couldn't have

> anything to do with his new series, could it?http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/17/david-mitchell-ju...

>
> And the Mail:
>
> Is Downton's creator the biggest snob in Britain?
> In this personal view, A.N. Wilson argues that Julian Fellowes - who's
> furious his wife can't inherit an earldom - has an absurd obsession

> with classhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2037077/Downton-Abbeys-crea...

[Turenne]

On 28 Sep, 12:36, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Or
> if one is obsessed with preserving he male name, the with remainder to
> heirs male in tail or to the issue or one's grand father. Ashtown
> comes to mind.
>

The whole point of special remainders is to reward the first holder of
a peerage for giving particularly exemplary service, it doesn't
normally take into account future holders of the title. One of the
best examples of this is the unique remainder of the dukedom of
Marlborough...

RL

[marquess]

Marlborough was fortunate had he had a couple of sons he would have
died with the normal remainder rather than having that act of
parliament, which has now made the peerage virtually inextinguishable!
Save by plague or pestilence. Perhaps only Wellington or Nelson are
comparable to the Marlborough in terms of services rendered to the
nation.

[Turenne]

On 29 Sep, 23:52, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Marlborough was fortunate had he had a couple of sons he would have
> died with the normal remainder rather than having that act of
> parliament, which has now made the peerage virtually inextinguishable!
> Save by plague or pestilence. Perhaps only Wellington or Nelson are
> comparable to the Marlborough in terms of services rendered to the
> nation.
>

My point exactly...

RL

[Jonathan]

On Sep 25, 9:06 am, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The eagle-eyed amongst us will have noticed that Lord Fellowes has
> reverted to the surname FELLOWES, having previously changed his name
> to KITCHENER-FELLOWESin 1998:

I just noticed today that both the House of Lords and Dods are listing
him as Kitchener-Fellowes again:

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/julian-fellowes/90418

http://bit.ly/sIsoD5

The Letters Patent certainly didn't, though.

[Turenne]

On Nov 7, 5:20 pm, Jonathan <jra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:06 am, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The eagle-eyed amongst us will have noticed that Lord Fellowes has
> > reverted to the surname FELLOWES, having previously changed his name
> > to KITCHENER-FELLOWESin 1998:
>
> I just noticed today that both the House of Lords and Dods are listing
> him as Kitchener-Fellowes again:

Has he been granted arms yet? I have some ideas concerning charges,
but this is too civilized a forum to say what they are...

RL

[Raveem]

Why all the ire aginst Fellowes :)? Apart from creating some popular television, what has the man actually done?

In these times, as he points out at the HPA debate (http://goo.gl/Ziyj5, previously referenced in our discussion at http://goo.gl/O4wjc), the social ambitions possible for a commoner have become successively closed off; even PMs cannot get hereditary honours. What BGH refers to as pulling up the ladder after one is aboard for Scottish baronies has effectively happened to honours in general: the top of the "social pyramid" being effectively separated and adrift from the rest of the structure. As Fellowes exposes in both the aforementioned HPA debate and in his recent campaigns, this is an issue he obviously feels concerned about. That he has a vested interest (an understatement) does not detract from the truth of what he is saying. I.e., that hereditary honours are probably gone for good except for those that have them already and their heirs, and therefore what the best that commoners (like Fellowes was before his elevation) could do was marginal at best: they could only tweak the boundaries of what is possible, via the effort to change peerage "succession law" en masse in this case.

I also note that Fellowes already has about all that it is possible to gain of the old honours for a commoner in these times - a life barony (doubtless with arms), a maorial lordship and a deputy lieutenancy, some inherited, some worked for. I'm surprised he hasn't yet bought the sole remaining item available to a commoner, the Scottish feudal barony (or maybe he has...). To "champion" the cause he has chosen seems like the logical and consistent next step for someone who has done just about everyting else in this area. Of course his efforts may end up being counterproductive: by shedding light on an institution the public and politicians were happy to neglect, undesirable changes may by accelerated.

Raveem.

[Raveem]

Downton / Fellowes / hereditary peerages / monarchy succession:

http://goo.gl/zlBUV

[marquess]

Personally speaking I would rather no hereditary peer sat in that
house, if meant a change to the patents that govern individual
peerages-- and have governed them for centuries. The PC brigade are
such a damned nuisance in these matters, I can't see any changes
coming about anyway, though noises will continually be made,
especially by the likes of Fellows who should know better.

[Richard R]

Re a coat of arms. He's already an armiger as a scion of a Scots
gentry family and has, presumably, matriculated a suitably differenced
versino of the family arms at Lyon Office.

> >http://goo.gl/zlBUV- Hide quoted text -

[Turenne]

On Dec 8, 12:53 pm, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Re a coat of arms. He's already an armiger as a scion of a Scots
> gentry family and has, presumably, matriculated a suitably differenced
> versino of the family arms at Lyon Office.
>

I can't find any arms relating to him, but my info on Scottish gentry
families is a bit out of date. I expect his arms are quartered with
those of his wife, since she is an heraldic heiress.

RL

[DB]

It will be interesting to see if he does quarter Kitchener now that he
has dropped the double-barrel. Will he bear them on an escutcheon of
pretence instead?

[Turenne]

On Dec 8, 6:32 pm, DB <d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> It will be interesting to see if he does quarter Kitchener now that he
> has dropped the double-barrel. Will he bear them on an escutcheon of
> pretence instead?
>

It rather depends on whether Fellowes claims to be the head of the
Kitchener family or not. If he does do that, the arms in the next
generation will be quartered. Fox-Davies has a great deal to say on
the matter (p 536).

RL

[G. Willis]

Well, Mr Kitchener-Fellowes appears in the 'Fellowes-Gordon of
Knockespoch' pedigree in Burke's LG 1952, but there are no arms listed
for the family; earlier generations are found under 'Fellowes of Court
Hall formerly of Woodfield', for which family there are also no arms
listed. The earliest individual listed in the latter entry, a Thomas
Fellowes, bur. Clevedon, Somerset, 14th April 1748, is described as
'ward of Sir John Fellowes, 1st and last Bt. of Carshalton (see
Burke's Extinct Baronetcies)'.

The Burke's site has the following visible:

'FELLOWES-GORDON formerly OF KNOCKESPOCH Arms: (of Ian Douglas Gordon
of Knockespoch, (Yr) – matric arms at LO 28 Dec 1951 – Az., a rose
argent barbed and seeded vert, between three boars' heads erased or.
Crest: – A stag at ...'

The 1952 pedigree makes it clear that the above Ian Douglas Gordon is
a fairly distant cousin of Julian's (being a descendant of the first
son of Sir Thomas Fellowes, K.C.B., b. 1778, where Julian is a
descendant of his third son), and of course they wouldn't share these
arms. It would be strange though if, bearing everything else in mind,
Mr Kitchener-Fellowes hadn't applied for a grant by now.

[Richard R]

Julian Fellowes would not 'share' the arms of the head of the house
it's true, and that wasn't what I suggested. Scots Heralds are far
stricter on these matters than their colleagues south of the border
(Lord Lyon has the status of a judge in Scotland). And my experience
of Scots families is they register noble and amigerous children at
Lyon Office soon after birth. So, as I previously stated, JF probably
already has a coat of arms as a cadet of his family, suitably
differenced. In Scotland, a collateral's arms are differenced by a
mark of difference such as a bordure.

On Dec 9, 12:04 am, "G. Willis"

[William]

Would he not register with the King at Arms? I think he is Engllish.

William

[G. Willis]

Richard R- I wasn't by any means trying to indicate that you had erred
in anything you'd said; I simply sought to present the information I
had at hand on this family since there seemed to have been some
trouble finding any hint as to what the arms were. I apologise for the
misunderstanding at any rate.

Bearing in mind what you've said, here's my (limited) understanding of
what the situation is; please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Ian Douglas Gordon, being 'the Younger' of Knockespoch, has
matriculated a differenced version of the arms used by his father; the
father's arms, then, would be the undifferenced arms from which all
sons and members of cadet branches would derive theirs, and therefore
Julian Kitchener-Fellowes presumably uses arms largely similar to
those matriculated by I. D. Gordon, but we don't know exactly how they
differ? I have only some knowledge of the English system, and less of
the Scottish
one.

The problem I encountered was that there didn't seem to be any mention
of arms in the family entries, as indicated in my previous post;
presumably, then, the information was just omitted by Burke's (or not
sent in by the family)?

> > Mr Kitchener-Fellowes hadn't applied for a grant by now.- Hide quoted text -

[Richard R]

Irrespective of your place of birth, you would apply to the authority
who first issued the arms. Hence Americans of armigerous descent apply
to England or Scotland on that basis.

And I'm sorry G Willis if my previous reply indicated I thought you
thought I'd erred (if you get all that)! My answers have a tendency to
be 'not soft' in tone, which is purely in the interests of brevity and
giving facts - but I appreciate that's difficult not to come across as
tetchy or rude on the screen!

And I appreciate what you say about no mention of arms but it's
probably unwise to take a printed reference work as the last word on
such things as this.

All interesting stuff!

On Dec 9, 11:24 am, "G. Willis"

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jonathan]

On Dec 8, 6:32 pm, DB <d...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> It will be interesting to see if he does quarter Kitchener now that he
> has dropped the double-barrel. Will he bear them on an escutcheon of
> pretence instead?

Has he dropped the double-barrel? While it wasn't in his Letters
Patent, it has now been added to his name as listed on the House of
Lords website and Dods parliamentary biography.

[Turenne]

Baronage Press indicated some time ago that he has petitioned for new
arms to symbolise the Kitchener connection. I'm not sure that they are
correct. That said; they have illustrated the Knockespoch arms here:

http://www.baronage.co.uk/nl/nl-04-03.htm

RL

[Richard R]

Thanks Richard for flagging this website, which was unknown to me.

[Richard R]

Note: Julian Fellowes was born in Cairo on 17 August 1949

> > RL- Hide quoted text -

[G. Willis]

Richard R- Ah, right. Got the wrong end of the stick it seems. Never
mind then!
I agree that books such as Burke's are far from infallible (well, as
I've been made aware previously, Burke's at least is far from
infallible...) but it just seemed a little odd that such an important
piece of information would be left out. Still, these things do happen
I suppose!

Good to see the Knockespoch arms (thanks to Richard L) also.

[Turenne]

On Dec 9, 7:26 pm, "G. Willis" <boundtotheflamingwh...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

According to this:

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

The name Kitchener-Fellowes was registered at the College of Arms in
1998. I assume that being the case, his arms were granted in England
rather than matriculated in Scotland. Of course; he could simply have
been registering the name change so that The College records for his
wife were correct.

RL

[Richard R]

Like other posters, my contributions are supposition, since Lord
Fellowes of West Stafford has had the temerity not to consult me on
this!
I suppose that his father may have matriculated arms for his son and
heir whilst Julian Alexander was still in his infancy. If the arms
were a differenced form of the Scots family arms, then that may have
happened in Scotland. If not, then it's possible the operation was
conducted entirely in England. But my experience of applications for
arms is that the authority looks into the ancestry of an applicant
and, if they find them connected to an existing armigerous family,
they recommend the applicant apply for a differenced version of the
family arms.

[Michael Rhodes]

The earldom of Kitchener of Khartoum is extinct, as of Dec 16, 2011.