Bigamous marriage of the 13th Duke of Manchester
966 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Rhodes
Jul 21, 2011, 10:42:42 AM7/21/11
to peerag...@googlegroups.com
The 13th Duke of Manchester's marriage to his (now ex)wife Wendy Burford in 1993 has been ruled to have been bigamous.
Jonathan
Jul 21, 2011, 6:58:06 PM7/21/11
to Peerage News
So is his son still in line to inherit the Dukedom, given that his
first marriage produced no children?
Also, why does the article suggest his children have the "title" The
Hon., when as children of a duke they would be at least Lord and Lady?
first marriage produced no children?
Also, why does the article suggest his children have the "title" The
Hon., when as children of a duke they would be at least Lord and Lady?
marquess
Jul 21, 2011, 7:49:59 PM7/21/11
to Peerage News
Well there are only two children, the eldest should be styled as
Viscount Mandeville, and the dau Lady whatever. I would say that
should these revelations prove true then, the heir to the dukedome
will be Lord Kimble William Drogo followed by his son Anthony.
Debretts 2011 lists the current dukes issue as being by his '2nd wife'
which usually implies that something is not quite as it should be.
Viscount Mandeville, and the dau Lady whatever. I would say that
should these revelations prove true then, the heir to the dukedome
will be Lord Kimble William Drogo followed by his son Anthony.
Debretts 2011 lists the current dukes issue as being by his '2nd wife'
which usually implies that something is not quite as it should be.
marquess
Jul 21, 2011, 9:28:45 PM7/21/11
to Peerage News
It must surly be a matter of time before peerage law in terms of
inheritance is updated so that issue who are deemed to be legitimate
for all other intents and purposes, at least within marriage or
subsequent marriage of the parents, are allowed to inherit. Is there
much money in the Manchester trust fund anyway? They have been
virtually landless since 50's?
inheritance is updated so that issue who are deemed to be legitimate
for all other intents and purposes, at least within marriage or
subsequent marriage of the parents, are allowed to inherit. Is there
much money in the Manchester trust fund anyway? They have been
virtually landless since 50's?
Michael Rhodes
Jul 22, 2011, 3:15:18 AM7/22/11
to peerag...@googlegroups.com
As far as I know the son cannot succeed to the peerages as he was not born in wedlock. The heir pres is Lord Kimble Montagu, the duke's brother.
Richard R
Jul 22, 2011, 3:58:25 AM7/22/11
to Peerage News
I agree that the heirship to the peerage reverts to the present Duke's
brother Lord Kimble Montagu. Until such time (if ever) the duke's
present & 3rd marriage produces a legitimate heir.
The High Court has no jurisdiction with regard to succession to
peerages. That is a matter for the House of Lords' Committee for
Privileges and Conduct. The High Court has ruled on the childrens'
rights to enjoy an income and rights of inheritance to the estate, it
cannot pronounce on the son's right to succeed to the title, an
'incorporeal hereditament'.
As to 'updated' peerage law, I fear we will have a long wait for that.
There's no appetite to use Parliamentary time to introduce a Bill to
'tidy up' the law as it now stands with regards to peerage. Any such
government, Tory or Labour, attempting to do that would be criticised
for diverting precious Parliamentary time away from primary
legislation, simply to attend to something which affects a tiny,
priviledged (as many see them) few. [I'm not expressing any personal
view, simply saying what I think is the position with regard to this.]
On Jul 22, 8:15 am, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
brother Lord Kimble Montagu. Until such time (if ever) the duke's
present & 3rd marriage produces a legitimate heir.
The High Court has no jurisdiction with regard to succession to
peerages. That is a matter for the House of Lords' Committee for
Privileges and Conduct. The High Court has ruled on the childrens'
rights to enjoy an income and rights of inheritance to the estate, it
cannot pronounce on the son's right to succeed to the title, an
'incorporeal hereditament'.
As to 'updated' peerage law, I fear we will have a long wait for that.
There's no appetite to use Parliamentary time to introduce a Bill to
'tidy up' the law as it now stands with regards to peerage. Any such
government, Tory or Labour, attempting to do that would be criticised
for diverting precious Parliamentary time away from primary
legislation, simply to attend to something which affects a tiny,
priviledged (as many see them) few. [I'm not expressing any personal
view, simply saying what I think is the position with regard to this.]
On Jul 22, 8:15 am, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
marquess
Jul 22, 2011, 4:56:33 AM7/22/11
to Peerage News
This then renders 'Viscount Mandeville' to Mr Alexander Michael
Charles David Francis George Edward William Kimble Drogo Montagu, a
bit much for a commoner. Unless his father marries his mother then the
he has been reduced to Mr. Shame the legislation couldn't be
introduced, even by a bill from the Lords.
Charles David Francis George Edward William Kimble Drogo Montagu, a
bit much for a commoner. Unless his father marries his mother then the
he has been reduced to Mr. Shame the legislation couldn't be
introduced, even by a bill from the Lords.
www.maltagenealogy.com
Jul 26, 2011, 12:16:18 AM7/26/11
to Peerage News
An interesting array of Photos of the Dukes of Manchester.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theduchessofmanchester/
C.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theduchessofmanchester/
C.
www.maltagenealogy.com
Jul 26, 2011, 2:30:07 AM7/26/11
to Peerage News
The judge said there was 'absolutely no doubt that at the relevant
times Wendy reasonably believed that the marriage was valid' and, the
laws of Australia, California and England all allowed the children of
bigamous marriages to be treated as legitimate.
Quoting from legal authority on the issue, the judge said it would be
wrong for England to 'stand aloof in barbarous insularity from the
rest of the world' in failing to treat the offspring of invalid
marriages as legitimate.
He concluded: 'Alexander and Ashley acquired the status of legitimacy
by reason of the law of the domicile of each of their parents. That is
the case whether the 13th Duke was domiciled in England, in Australia
or in California.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016558/Duke-Manchesters-children-CAN-inherit-fortune-despite-bigamous-marriage.html
times Wendy reasonably believed that the marriage was valid' and, the
laws of Australia, California and England all allowed the children of
bigamous marriages to be treated as legitimate.
Quoting from legal authority on the issue, the judge said it would be
wrong for England to 'stand aloof in barbarous insularity from the
rest of the world' in failing to treat the offspring of invalid
marriages as legitimate.
He concluded: 'Alexander and Ashley acquired the status of legitimacy
by reason of the law of the domicile of each of their parents. That is
the case whether the 13th Duke was domiciled in England, in Australia
or in California.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016558/Duke-Manchesters-children-CAN-inherit-fortune-despite-bigamous-marriage.html
Richard R
Jul 26, 2011, 3:09:05 AM7/26/11
to Peerage News
Assuming the present duke's son born out of wedlock wants to, we shall
have to wait until the former's death before the heirship to the
dukedom is tested and, assuming Parliament don't address the issue in
the meantime, that will be through the House of Lords' Committee for
Privileges and Conduct. The duke is younger than me, so it's entirely
possible I shan't be around to see that happen!
On Jul 26, 7:30 am, "www.maltagenealogy.com" <tancarvil...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016558/Duke-Manchesters-chil...
have to wait until the former's death before the heirship to the
dukedom is tested and, assuming Parliament don't address the issue in
the meantime, that will be through the House of Lords' Committee for
Privileges and Conduct. The duke is younger than me, so it's entirely
possible I shan't be around to see that happen!
On Jul 26, 7:30 am, "www.maltagenealogy.com" <tancarvil...@gmail.com>
wrote:
marquess
Jul 26, 2011, 9:00:19 AM7/26/11
to Peerage News
It is a foregone conclusion he can't succeed! A bigamous marriage is
not a marriage, even in peerage cases involving an English peer or a
Peerage of the UK even those born of parents who have subsequently
married have been debarred from inheriting. One of the saddest for me
is the earldom of Berkley which should have been held by the late Sir
Lennox and subsequently his son. Of course as Richard said the boy
could take the matter to a court and we could have a land mark ruling,
but I think that might stand greater chance had the parents
subsequently married, rather than not being married at all; even
though the his 'wife' believed she was married.
not a marriage, even in peerage cases involving an English peer or a
Peerage of the UK even those born of parents who have subsequently
married have been debarred from inheriting. One of the saddest for me
is the earldom of Berkley which should have been held by the late Sir
Lennox and subsequently his son. Of course as Richard said the boy
could take the matter to a court and we could have a land mark ruling,
but I think that might stand greater chance had the parents
subsequently married, rather than not being married at all; even
though the his 'wife' believed she was married.
www.maltagenealogy.com
Jul 27, 2011, 12:24:16 AM7/27/11
to Peerage News
The son of the Duke of Manchester should continue to style as Viscount
Mandeville without any prejudice and the court decision provides good
cause to his effect.
Mandeville without any prejudice and the court decision provides good
cause to his effect.
Richard R
Jul 27, 2011, 3:14:35 AM7/27/11
to Peerage News
It's my view (and, after all, that's all any of us can give on this
website - backed possibly by precedent etc) that, based on the laws
and precedents which govern the British peerage, the presumed heir is
the present duke's brother. The High Court cannot rule on matters
relating to titles of honour and there's no indication that they've
tried to do so in this case. There's no mention of the succession to
the title. The ruling clearly relates to the child's rights to the
estate and an income from it.
The succession to the title will not be tested until the death of the
present duke. But, based on the laws governing the peerage as it now
stands, and on what has happened before (ie precedent), the duke has
no heir apparent BORN IN WEDLOCK, and only such an heir has a right to
the style by courtesy of Viscount Mandeville.
On Jul 27, 5:24 am, "www.maltagenealogy.com" <tancarvil...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > in wedlock. The heir pres is Lord Kimble Montagu, the duke's brother.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
website - backed possibly by precedent etc) that, based on the laws
and precedents which govern the British peerage, the presumed heir is
the present duke's brother. The High Court cannot rule on matters
relating to titles of honour and there's no indication that they've
tried to do so in this case. There's no mention of the succession to
the title. The ruling clearly relates to the child's rights to the
estate and an income from it.
The succession to the title will not be tested until the death of the
present duke. But, based on the laws governing the peerage as it now
stands, and on what has happened before (ie precedent), the duke has
no heir apparent BORN IN WEDLOCK, and only such an heir has a right to
the style by courtesy of Viscount Mandeville.
On Jul 27, 5:24 am, "www.maltagenealogy.com" <tancarvil...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
marquess
Jul 27, 2011, 10:20:48 AM7/27/11
to Peerage News
Correct he is just Mr Montagu!
www.maltagenealogy.com
Sep 24, 2017, 9:02:30 PM9/24/17
to Peerage News
Since when does a new British Peer have to enrol to the roll of peerage ?
Found this on wikipedia.. Found quite odd, as he is legally the titleholder.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages