Change in the status of the Cavan earldom

[bx...@yahoo.com]

There has been a change in the status of the Cavan earldom by DPB, from its last print edition (2019) to what is currently online.

In the last print edition, Roger Cavan Lambart (b. 1944) was listed as follows: "styled 13th Earl (has not yet established his right to the peerage".  He was also shown as having succeeded in 1988.

DPB Online now shows the earldom as "Dormant 1988."  While I don't know when the change was made, the reason is made clear in the online version.  There is a possible descent from the 6th son of the 7th Earl.  

A legitimate male descendant from the marriage of the late Richard Joseph Oliver Lambart   (of S Melbourne, Vic, Australia), only known son of the late Hon. Edward Arnold Ford Henry Lambart (by his wife Mathila Louisa Bayly), 6th son of the 7th Earl, b. 1843, d; m.  1873 (Melbourne, Vic, Australia) Mrs. Ann Jones, da. of Robert Hewitt, of Lancs., would have a prior claim to the earldom than Roger Cavan Lambart, a descendant of the 7th and youngest son of the 7th Earl.

As a result, the following titles, all in the peerage of Ireland, are now dormant: Earl of Cavan and Viscount Kilcoursie (both cr. 1647) and Lord Lambart, Baron of Cavan (cr. 1617).

Brooke

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

According to LPB Richard Joseph Oliver Lambart died in 1871. No mother 
or wife indicated.

Hon. Edward Arnold Ford Lambart, officer in the army
b 2 Mar 1818
d 4 Jul 1845
      |
Richard Joseph Oliver Lambart
b 30 Jun 1843
d 1871

SOURCE
Lodge’s Peerage 81st ed. (1912), 455

[BREMENMURRAY]

It seems rather perverse to make an Earldom dormant on the basis that there might or might not be someone living in Australia with a better claim than the acknowledged and know claimant.

[Robert Jewell]

In order to put in a claim (as opposed to just assuming the title), the claimant must submit documentary proof that everyone above him in the family tree, and in all branches above him, is deceased or disqualified. This is birth records, death records, and marriage records. This requirement is expensive and time consuming, when you are an Nth cousin of the last title holder, and may be why some titles are not being claimed. Obviously if there is a fortune at the other end of the chain, someone would do it, but a lot of titles these days are just that, an ancient title, the successive title holders having drained the pond.

[marquess]

Also with no House of Lords to sit (this one wouldn't have done so anyway) it deminshes the incentive to do so. Inheritance tax has played a large role in draining the pond.

[BREMENMURRAY]

The onus should be on the distant relative{if such a relative exists} to prove a better claim.In this case it is particularly ridiculous because the present leading contender has a son and grandson.It would be different if there was a actual identified named person in dispute for the title

[marquess]

I agree with the last commentator,if the said individual can't be identified from Debretts' research, the title is being thrown into Limbo for no useful purpose. 

[dpth...@gmail.com]

If one wants to defend the hereditary principle (and if not, then what are we doing here?), then one must accept the rules. I don't understand any proponent of the hereditary privilege finding any problem with this. If titles are given to the people we find "convenient", the whole system is meaningless.

 Any person must prove his or her right to a hereditary peerage, which is why there is always some lapse of time between the death of one peer and the official  confirmation as heir of the following one. This is hardly the first time a title must go dormant because the existence or extinction of senior lines cannot be proved, and there are examples of cases in which one person's claim was accepted, only to be forced later to recognize a senior claim.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

One famous example of a title being wrongly claimed by a junior branch, when there existed those with a senior claim, is the Earldom of Newburgh.

When the 5th Earl died in 1814, the title was claimed by his cousin, Francis Eyre. Francis and his next three Eyre successors assumed the title in various degrees. (Complete Peerage says that the last, Mary Dorothea, called herself "Countess of Newburgh" in her will.) The Eyres made official claims for official recognition, but no action was ever taken by the House of Lords.

Contemporary Peerage works accorded the earldom to the Eyres. See, for example, the attached extracts from the 1828 Debrett's.

The Eyres descended from a daughter of the second marriage of the 3rd Countess of Newburgh. However, there existed issue of a daughter of the first marriage of the 3rd Countess. This issue were Italian aristocrats and made little or no efforts to claim the title, but of course it has since been recognized that the Giustinianis inherited the earldom in 1814.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Another example of an earldom which became dormant because existence or extinction of senior lines could not be proved is the earldom of Milltown.

When the 7th Earl died on 1891, there were certainly heirs living then and long after. At least three of these heirs made claims to the earldom, but the claims never proceeded very far.

Burke's continued to include the earldom through at least the 1959 edition.

Debrett's 1971 says that the titles were "now probably extinct". The 1953 Debrett's listed only one family member still living, a female born in 1891.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Richard provided a good explanation of the process of inheriting a title in this thread:

https://groups.google.com/g/peerage-news/c/UxjwGZXjROA/m/wYzJZthLBhQJ

"EVERY heir of a peer has to establish his/her claim to a peerage
before being entered on the Roll of the Peerage, which has replaced
the Roll of the House of Lords as the official record of the peerage.
Here's a very good summary from Debrett's website under their
'Essential guide to the peerage' section (which contains other
interesting information, as you'll see):

When a hereditary peer dies, and his heir wishes to prove his claim to
the title, he or she must provide suitable documentary evidence to the
Crown Office of the House of Lords to prove that he or she is indeed
the heir to the title. [emphasis added]

When the House of Lords Act of 1999 removed the automatic right of
hereditary peers of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United
Kingdom to receive a summons to take their seats in the House of
Lords, it also led to the discontinuation of the Roll of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal. This meant that there was no official register
in which those inheriting hereditary peerages could seek inclusion as
evidence of their status and rank.

This situation was resolved by a Royal Warrant dated 1 June 2004 which
instituted a Roll of the Peerage, to be prepared and kept by the Lord
Chancellor, acting in consultation with Garter Principal King of Arms
(for English peerages) and Lord Lyon King of Arms (for Scottish
peerages). The Roll of the Peerage also records peers of Ireland and
life peers.

Any person claiming a peerage may apply to the Lord Chancellor to be
entered on the Roll; the application and supporting evidence is
presented under the direction of the Lord Chancellor. The Registrar of
the Roll of the Peerage is Ian Denyer, who is also Head of the Crown
Office at the House of Lords.

Claims to abeyant peerages, or to peerages whose succession is in
dispute, are made by Petition to The Crown, presented through the Lord
Chancellor. He refers the accompanying documents to the Attorney
General in order that he may report upon them to the Sovereign.

The Attorney General seeks the advice of Counsel for The Crown in
peerage matters and then hears the petitioner and his counsel. Claims
to peerages in abeyance will not be proceeded with if the commencement?
of the abeyance occurred more than a hundred years before the
presentation of the petition, or if the petitioner is not a child of
the last holder of the peerage or a descendant of a parent of the last
holder.

If the Attorney-General is satisfied (a) that no improper arrangement
has been entered into between the co-heirs, and (b) that no question
of law or pedigree is at issue, he may recommend the exercise of the
royal discretion without reference to the House of Lords.

Otherwise he is obliged to recommend a reference to the House of
Lords, which in turn refers the matter to the Committee for
Privileges. In the case of Scottish peerages or other peerages with a
strong Scottish connection, such claims are referred through the
Scottish authorities to Lord Lyon King of Arms.

http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/claims-to-peerages.aspx

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Re the Newburgh case: it is interesting that in 1814 everyone forgot about the descendants of the Countess of Newburgh's first marriage, because they were know to people in the 1700s:

Walpole to Mann, from Rome, 4 June 1740:

"I am just come from Albano. The English Court [i.e., the Pretender] is there: the Lady of Inverness [wife of titular Duke of Inverness] arrived last Sunday... There came with a Countess Mahone [i.e. Anne Clifford, dau of Countess of Newburgh], one of the Lady Neupergh's daughters, who is married to an Irish colonel in the Neapolitan service, and is going to her husband..."

Walpole to Mann, from London, 22 March 1771:

"We have got the Roman Prince and Princess Giustiniani; she is daughter [actually step-granddaughter] of some Derwentwater, and has many relations here among the spurious royal family [meaning the illegitimate descendants of the Stuarts].

On Friday, July 12, 2024 at 10:15:27 AM UTC-5 dpth...@gmail.com wrote:

[BREMENMURRAY]

With so many titles facing extinction it must surely be better to let a known heir assume a title. Would it be that bad if someone with a better claim appeared years later?

[dpth...@gmail.com]

I guess any future peerages should be created "with remainder to whomever Bremenmurray likes best and finds most convenient." That would certainly make things interesting for us. :)

[dpth...@gmail.com]

It's worth noting that this dormancy in the Cavan earldom is not news. As Brooke wrote in the first post here:

"In the last print edition, Roger Cavan Lambart (b. 1944) was listed as follows: "styled 13th Earl (has not yet established his right to the peerage".  He was also shown as having succeeded in 1988."

While Burke's in at least some recent editions accorded the title to Roger Lambart, as far as I can see Debrett's has always included language that he was merely "styled" earl of Cavan, and that his claim had not been established. Surely he himself always knew there was a problem.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

I must say that I do not understand the feeling of "sadness" about some peerages becoming extinct or dormant. It is a natural process which has always happened, even setting aside the question of the relevance of such titles in modern society. Many Peers do not themselves even use their titles, especially where they are not stewards of great hereditary estates.

As Justice Crewe wrote in the famous case on the earldom of Oxford wrote:

"There must be a period and an end to all temporal things, finis rerum, an end to names and dignities, and whatsoever is terrine, for where is de Vere? where is Mowbray? where is Mortimer? They are entombed in the urns and sepulchres of mortality."

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

Bremen,

Next in line person is Roger's eighth cousin once removed. He would need to prove his lineage from 17th century. I don't see bright future for this title in any case.

[malcolm davies]

The question of succession to hereditary peerages is becoming more problematical in a practical sense.There are quite a few peers who are recognised as such, but are not on the Roll of the Peerage.Examples are the Dukes of Argyll,Atholl & Manchester,the Marquesses of Ailesbury,Bath,Bute,Conyngham,Ely,Londonderry,Waterford & Winchester,Earls Baldwin, Beatty,Granville & Grey,the Earls of Bessborough,Buchan,Cavan(obviously),Coventry,Craven,Dalhousie,Ducie,Essex,Harewood,Home,Ilchester,Kingston,Lincoln,Longford,Lonsdale,Malmesbury,Mayo,Moray,Mount Edgcumbe,Newburgh,Norbury,Orkney,Plymouth,Ranfurly,Rothes,Selkirk,Sutherland,Swinton,Tankerville,Wharncliffe & Winterton.And these are only the ones not on the Roll in the first three degrees of the peerage.Some of course may be putting themselves on the Roll(although the version I used is 18 June 2024)

The problem is that being on the Roll of the Peerage provides very few benefits.One benefit is eligibility to be elected a representative hereditary peer.But the survival of this benefit is in doubt under the new government.Another benefit was recognition by the Sovereign for official events-but no hereditary peers were invited to the Coronation because they were on the Roll.

For peers resident overseas, given the cost of putting oneself on the Roll,they no doubt feel that there is no point,unless they live in a country where having a second eligibilty to residence would be useful.

[Robert Jewell]

As long as the law recognizes the special legal status of a peerage or baronetage, such as it might be, there needs to be a mechanism for making sure that the claimant is in fact next in line. If the government ceases to finance the process of such proof, and the peers/baronets themselves don't set up such a mechanism, then spurious titles and unproven claims will essentially prevail, and it will be like France or Italy, or Germany/Austria, where people basically set themselves up in a title for social status.

I recall reading of an interview with a newly succeeded baron, whose title I cannot recall, who said the thing was of no use, except to get a good table at a restaurant.

I sadly foresee this situation in Britain. It seems to be well advanced in Ireland.

[S. S.]

Should the House of Lords be further reformed and the last  connection between the peerage and the official establishment be severed, I doubt anyone would keep up the proving claims for peerages pipeline. Probably will still exist but will fall into disuse over time. Many peers already don't bother for a variety of reasons on being recognized. 

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

In case of disputes, I imagine that there will be some legal mechanism for proving these things, in law courts if not in the old way, at least for those titles to which great landed estates are attached, or to which the great hereditary offices are attached.

But personally, I do not pay much attention to current members of any but the most important families, which is why I rarely post anything about recent births or marriages. Things in the 1950s and before are my main interest.

[marquess]

The only way that things might change for the hereditary peerage, is if more were created to include some of the modern day 'movers and shakers'; otherwise it's just stuck at 1964 and prior, not that there's anything wrong with that.  The days when peers were sought out to be company directors due to their prestiege has sadly long gone as well as the lustre of the peerage itself. 

[sven_me...@web.de]

What is sad about that I wonder?

[marquess]

Sad, becasue I enjoy one of the most peculiar and interesting British insitutions, the British Peerage; and wish to see it flourish rather than decline. 

[dpth...@gmail.com]

That ship has probably sailed. The Peerage is and will continue to be increasingly irrelevant.

From my perspective, this is all the more reason to focus one's attention on the historical persons in the Peerage and their families, when the aristocracy was in its heyday. There are many dozens of memoirs and published diaries and correspondences of interesting aristocrats in the 18th and 19th centuries, and even the early 20th century, from which you can learn how they thought about things, how they led their lives, etc. To me, this is much more interesting than just compiling lists of modern-day names and dates.

But for those who are interested only in contemporary aristocrats: if no more creations are ever made, I would guess that in the year 2500 there will still be many thousands of members of titled families. There is no danger of them all becoming extinct. And with all due respect to the present claimant, I don't think we lose much by the fact that no one is sure who the real Earl of Cavan is.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Since the King created only a life peerage (albeit a dukedom) for his own brother, it's wishful thinking  to think we will ever see the creation of hereditary peerages again, certainly not on a mass level.

Even the  next "chance" for a creation ( the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales' children ) is  maybe 2 decades down the road.

Brooke

[S. S.]

I have always echoed the sentiment that the peerage as we once knew with with rolling green acres and glistening coronets and pageantry is now long gone. Focusing on the historical context of peerage creations and their connections in the modern world is far more interesting. People, past and present, make up the peerage, not titles. In this modern world, that is the most we can ever expect. The peerage we all once knew or grew up with is now long gone. 

S.S.

[BREMENMURRAY]

On a more optimistic note eighteen of twenty four non royal Dukes still reside in at least one of their traditional stately homes. Several still have more than one.The lower levels of the peerage Viscount and Baron when often awarded for political services and never had "rolling green acres".

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Coincidentally, in my most recent re-reading of the Walpole Correspondence I today came across a reference to the later 6th Earl of Cavan, which might be interesting:

Walpole to Mann, 24 October 1758:

"... the night after the massacre at St Cas, the Duc d'Aiguillon gave a magnificent supper of 80 covers to our prisoners -- a Colonel Lambert [Richard, later 6th Earl of Cavan] got up at the bottom of the table, and asking for a bumper, called out to the Duc, 'Mylord Duke, here's the Roy de Franse [sic]!' You must put all the English you can crowd into the accent -- My-lord Duke was so confounded at the preposterous compliment, which it was impossible for him to return, that he absolutely sunk back into his chair and could not utter a syllable: our own people did not seem to feel more."

Mann replied 18 November 1758:

"Oh, that horrid Colonel Lambert! I cannot describe to you how my blood curdled on reading your account of his absurdity. How can we pretend to any breeding as a nation, whilst we have such bears in such a rank. It was well there was a Cavendish present to cancel the impression which that unheard-of flight might have made on that polite French officer with regard to the rest of his guests. Does it not, however, hurt you to think that the story will ne handed about in France as an instance of English rusticity?" 

[Paul Theroff]

"Re the Newburgh case: it is interesting that in 1814 everyone forgot about the descendants of the Countess of Newburgh's first marriage, because they were known to people in the 1700s:" [examples omitted but are above]


Here is another mention of the Countess's daughter from the first marriage, from the 1760s; Lady Holland wrote the her sister, the Duchess of Leinster, from Naples on 19 December 1766:

"Now for the people of the country. There is the Countess Mahony, a near relation of ours, daughter of fat Lady Newburgh and sister of Lady Fanny Clifford; she is a widow and has been settled here twenty-six years; she speaks English, French and Italian very well, is clever and entertaining; your son [Marquess of Kildare] and Charles [Hpn. Charles James Fox] are mighty fond of her and she of them. Lady Mary [Fox, née Fitzpatrick], who dislikes her because she tells some queer story of Lord Ossory when he was here, says she puts her in mind of Mrs Fortescue."


Probably her assertion that Countess Mahony was a "near relation" came from a mistake, though. She may have been thinking, without thinking closely, that since the Radcliffes were close relations, then Countess Mahony must be, too.

[Windemere]

According to the 'Earl of Cavan' Wikipedia article, Cavan C.E. Lambart, born 1957 (the 8th cousin of Roger Lambart born 1944, the present styled 13th Earl) has a son, Julian S. Lambart, born 1993.

[Paul Theroff]

And to show that they were all aware of Countess Mahony's daughter, through whom the earldom of Newburgh eventually passed de jure, Lady Holland wrote to the Duchess of Leinster from Rome, 29 March 1767:

"We were all sorry he [Lord Kildare] would not come with the Countess Mahony and the Prince and Princess Justiniani, who proposed it to him, and who are coming to Rome, where the Justinianis live. They are of a very old Roman family, descended, they pretend, from the Emperor Justinian. She is the Countess Mahony's daughter, consequently our cousin, and the best bred agreeable Italian I have seen ; has no cicisbeo, and is attached to her husband and children, of which she has seven. I understand she is much loved and respected here. I believe the Roman ladies are rather better educated than the Neapolitans, as Madame Mahony, who is a sensible woman, sent her daughter to a convent here preferable to keeping her at Naples. I believe it must be a disagreeable place to live in, tho' the pride and etiquette which is tiresome among all Italians is more here than anywhere, I understand."