HANNAY, Spencer (1921-2019)

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Col. Spencer Hannay, OBE, MC, died at home on 15 May 2019, aged 98. Funeral on 30 May at St. Saviour's Church, Bath.

Source: The Telegraph, 23 May 2019

[Vivian Henry] Spencer Hannay, born 1921, son of Henry Archibald Blair Hannay and of his wife, Ella Christina Porter. He married 1st Betty Margaret Hunt, and m.2nd 1967 Sheilah Helen Richardson.

According to Burke's he was de jure 10th Baronet, presumably of the Hannay of Mochrum Baronets, created 1630. This title first became dormant in 1689. It was claimed in 1783, but that claimant's son dsp in 1842. Apparently no claim has been accepted since then.

Presumably Spencer belonged to a collateral line of the family, since these early Scots Baronetcies usually had remainders to heirs male whatsoever. I have no knowledge to what extent it is agreed that Spencer was entitled to be called "de jure" Baronet.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Query about remainders to "heirs male whatsoever":

I am pretty certain that I understand that when the issue male of the grantee is extinct, a title goes next to the issue male of the YOUNGER brothers of the grantee before those of the OLDER brothers.

However, does this doctrine extend to previous generations? For example, if all issue male of the grantee and of his brothers is extinct, and, let's say, the grantee's father was third of five sons, does it next go to the issue male of the father's oldest brother first, or does it go first to the issue male of the father's younger brothers?

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Do any of the most recent Debrett's say anything about the Hannay baronetcy? I noticed that it is not on the list posted elsewhere in this group, of Baronetcies which Debrett's consider to be dormant.

Of course for these Scots Baronetcies with remainder to heirs male whatsoever, they will mostly never become really extinct, because somewhere, even if the connection is centuries old, they will have some male-line relatives living, even if it's impossible to trace.

[Henry W]

The Hannay baronetcy is not listed on the Kershaw list either.  Some details can be found in the Complete Baronetage: https://archive.org/details/cu31924092524382/page/n391

Thanks for the information about younger v. older brothers in heirs male whatsoever successions, had not come across that before.  There will be missing Baronets between the 2nd and 3rd baronets as listed in the Complete Baronetage.

Spencer Hannay has two sons and one dau by his first marriage, and 1 son and 1 dau by his second marriage.  If he is indeed the heir to the Hannay baronetcy then he is succeeded by his eldest son: Richard John Blair HANNAY (b 1950), who is m with one son.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Paul and Henry, there's nothing in the 2019 Debrett's about the Hannay baronetcy.

Brooke

[Henry W]

Looked into this some more with the help of thepeerage.com, which seems to recite the same details in the Complete Baronetage.

Donald A'Hannay of Sorbie (living in 1520) was the g-g-grandfather of Sir Robert Hannay, 1st Baronet, and is the common ancestor from which all of the Baronets are descended. Donald was also g-grandfather to Patrick A'Hannay of Kirkdale (died 1610), who was father to two sons, Patrick (d 1640), from whom the 3rd and 4th Baronets descend, and Robert (died 1636), from whom the "de jure" 5th onwards Baronets descend.

A tentative listing of these de jure Baronets (and these are all listed as such on thepeerage) is:

James, 5th Baronet (1794-1872), a g-g-g-g-g grandson of Patrick A'Hannay of Kirkdale (died 1610) and fifth cousin once removed of the 4th Baronet

James, 6th Baronet (1799-1873), first cousin of the 5th Baronet

Henry Eric Sutherland, 7th Baronet (1840-91), nephew of the 6th Baronet

Charles Graham, 8th Baronet (1867-1946), eldest son of the 7th Baronet

John Graham, 9th Baronet (1899 - ?, India), only son of the 8th Baronet

(Vivian Henry) Spencer, 10th Baronet (1921-2019), first cousin of the 9th Baronet

Richard John Blair, 11th Baronet (born 1950), eldest son of the 10th Baronet

Presumably the 9th Baronet died after 1976, otherwise Spencer's elder brother Eric would have succeeded before him.  As the title last went into dormancy in 1842, it has not ever been on the Roll of the Baronetage which was only created in 1910, and is presumably why it doesn't appear on Kershaw's list of dormant baronetcies which lists titles with possible claimants alive.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

nice ... thanks! I wonder whether anyone has presented a claim since 1842, because it would be interesting to see proofs of all senior lines being extinct. I have no reason to think they are not, but with this extended genealogy I imagine that it is hard to prove.

[colinp]

Obit in Daily Telegraph 3 June 2019 - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2019/06/03/colonel-spencer-hannay-sapper-played-key-role-preparing-defences/

No mention of the possible claim to the dormant baronetcy

EXTRACTS

Col Spencer Hannay, who has died aged 98, won an MC in Korea as a sapper major.

Hannay commanded 55 Field Squadron, part of 28 Field Engineer Regiment RE, in the 1st Commonwealth Division. He took over in April 1953 as a considerable enemy build-up had begun on the front with increasing amounts of harassing artillery and mortar fire.

Vivian Henry Spencer Hannay was born on April 12 1921 at Barrackpore, Bengal, India. He grew up in a bungalow. Snakes, tree squirrels and rats lived in the ceiling and could be seen running about on the ceiling cloth. His father worked for a firm of tea agents and commuted to Calcutta.

He married first, in 1948, Betty Hunt. They were divorced. He married, secondly, in 1967, Sheilah Richardson, who survives him with two sons and a daughter of his first marriage and a son and a daughter of his second.

Spencer Hannay, born April 12 1921, died May 15 2019 

[dpth...@gmail.com]

I found a source for this.

The Complete Peerage, Volume II, page 96, footnote a, sub Belhaven and Stenton, says that the law of Scotland was that "in the case of three or more brothers the next younger br. (and not the eldest br.) is heir at law."

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 7:29:46 AM UTC-5, dpth...@gmail.com wrote:

[dpth...@gmail.com]

By the way, this answers my question about whether this principle applies to earlier enrations as well, and the answer is "Yes".

The footnote is in the Belhaven article, and the answer is illustrated by the Belhaven situation.

The title was subject to a novodamus of 1675 whereby the title was to go to John Hamilton, grandson-in-law of the 1st Lord, and then to the heirs male of the body of the said John, and then to the heirs male whatsoever of the said John.

John Hamilton of Udston fl 20 Apr 1593; m.Margaret Muirhead, had, among others, three sons: John, the eldest, then James, then William.

The 2nd Lord Belhaven was a descendant of the second son, James, and he was in turn succeeded by his son and two grandsons, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Lords.

When the 5th Lord died in 1777, the issue male of James became extinct, and the title was claimed by a descendant of James' oldest brother, John. However, it was finally decided in 1799 that under Scots law the title belonged to the descendants of William, the third son (who still hold the title), whose claim was superior to that of the descendants of the oldest son, John.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Here is another twist I had not realized:

Under Scots law, apparently, the descent of a title which descends to "heirs male" goes as follows:

1. The grantee and his issue male

2. The younger brothers of the grantee, in order of age,and their respective issue male

and this is the new bit to me:

3. older brothers of the grantee and their issue male, but beginning with the next older and proceeding backwards in seniority.

For example:

John Smith had six sons:

1.son 1

2.son 2

3.son 3

4.son 4

5.son 5

6.son 6

Son 4 is granted a title to descend to heirs male. The succession goes: son 4, son 5, son 6, son 3, son 2, son 1.

This is illustrated by the case of the Earldom of Dunbar created in 1605 for George Home (4th son of his father). After he died the title was never assumed again, but Scots Peerage and Cokayne agree that the right thereto was inherited by his brothers and their issue male. They both assert that the de jure 2nd Earl was 

George's next older brother John (the 3rd son), and only after John's death did the son of the eldest brother become de jure 3rd Earl.