FAUCONBERG (E 1283) and CONYERS (E 1509) baronies automatically terminated upon the death of one of the two co-heiresses

[Richard R]

Following the death of one of the two co-heiresses to the baronies of FAUCONBERG (E 1283) and CONYERS (E 1509), the 1948 abeyance has terminated in favour of the remaining co-heiress (see below)

 

From the Telegraph of 24 May 2012:

LYCETT  June Wendy died Thursday 17th May 2012. Much loved and missed by family and friends. All enquiries to John Bardgett and Sons 01661 822982. Family flowers only. No letters please.

 

Lady June Wendy LYCETT (1924-2012) was the younger dau of the 5^th Earl of YARBOROUGH (1888-1948), who was also the 8^th Baron FAUCONBERG and 14^th Baron CONYERS. She m 1959, Maj Michael Hildesley Lycett LYCETT CBE. They had no issue but adopted the elder dau of her sister (see below).

 

The 5^th Earl’s death in 1948 saw the earldom pass to his brother, who succ as 6^th Earl of Yarborough (gf of the present 8^th Earl), whilst the FAUCONBERG & CONYERS baronies fell into abeyance between his to daus, co-heiresses to the baronies. Upon the death of the 5^th Earl’s younger dau without heirs of the body, the abeyance automatically terminates in favour of her elder sister:

 

Diana Mary MILLER (b 5 July 1920). Succ 2012 as 9^th Baroness FAUCONBURG (E 1283) and 15^th Baroness CONYERS (E 1509) upon the death of her sister, noted above. Has yet to establish her clairm and appear on The Roll of the Peerage. She lives in Zimbabwe. She m 1952 Robert MILLER (d 1990) and has two daus:

 

The Hon Marcia Anne MILLER, renamed on adoption as Anthea Theresa LYCETT (b 21 June 1954). She was adopted by her aunt (see above) and uncle. She is unm and lives in Gloucestershire.

 

The Hon Beatrix Diana MILLER (b 23 Aug 1955). She m 1991 Simon William JONES ARMSTRONG and has two sons: Guy William Robert (b 1996) and Matthew Charles (b 1998). They live in Kenya.

 

The abeyance may be short-lived however as the new peeress will be 92 next month. Should she die before both daughters (as seems likely), then the title will once again fall into abeyance between them. If the elder dau never has legitimate issue, then the younger dau and her sons will succ to the title.

 

The women in this family appear to be long-lived, so it’s possible the next abeyance may not be terminated until close to the middle of this century.

[marquess]

Thanks for posting this most  interesting, nice to see a barony coming out of abeyance thought this seems to be the hard way.

[Turenne]

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:32:04 PM UTC+1, marquess wrote:

 

Diana Mary MILLER (b 5 July 1920). Succ 2012 as 9^th Baroness FAUCONBURG (E 1283) and 15^th Baroness CONYERS (E 1509) upon the death of her sister, noted above. Has yet to establish her clairm and appear on The Roll of the Peerage. She lives in Zimbabwe. She m 1952 Robert MILLER (d 1990) and has two daus:

 

In addition to her English titles, Lady Diana  is the 11th Countess of Mertola, a Portugese title she inherited from her father. The title came to this country via his ancestor Frederica Schomberg Mildmay, Countess FitzWalter, who in turn inherited it from the 3rd Duke of Schomberg.

RL

[Paul Theroff]

I question how the Mertola title came to her, and indeed to her ancestor the Duke of Leinster. Below I quote a posting I made at the Nobiliana Forum about this, but we were unable to come up with a satisfactory answer.

 

 

"

Friedrich Hermann von Schönburg (1615-1690) had a long and distinguished miltary career and received various titles and honors, including being raised to comital rank apparently in 1640, receiving the Portuguese title of Conde de Mertola in 1663, and finally in 1689 being created, in Great Britain, Duke of Schomberg, etc.

 

The English titles had an unusual remainder to his third and youngest surviving (out of an original six) son, Charles, and then to his second surviving son, Meinrad, and then to all other male issue. The English titles accordingly went to Charles and then Meinrad (who had meanwhile been created Duke of Leinster) and then became extinct.

 

My question deals with the Portuguese title. Accoring to Europäische Stammtafeln, Band X, Tafel 28 (1986), this title went first to the eldest surviving son, Friedrich, who resided on the continent. It is next mentioned as being inherited by Meinrad’s daughter, Frederica, Countess of Holderness, in 1719. However, Friedrich had a daughter, Maria, and my question is why the title would not have descended to her. Maria married a Sayn-Wittgenstein; her only survivng son died without issue in 1743, but she had also a daughter, Sophie Amalie Gfn zu Sayn-Wittgenstein (1708-1727), who married Dietrich Freiherr von Wylich and left a daughter, Luise Amalie Sophie Frn von Wylich (1727-1748), who married in 1746 Wilhelm Hilmar von Grappendorf. I have no sources showing whether there was issue from the Grappendorf marriage, but even if there were none the Mertola title should have been with Luise until her death.

 

Frederica, Countess of Holderness, and later Countess Fitzwalter, died only in 1751, so perhaps she really did not inherit the Portuguese title until Luise’s death in 1748. If Frederica did in fact inherit the title, then presumably it now belongs by right to her heir of line, Lady Diana Mary Miller.

 

Were Portuguese nobility titles subject to some sort of semi-Salic succession, whereby  the title went from Friedrich to Meinhard, and then, there being no male heirs, to the closest female relative of the last male holder?

 

Here is an abbreviated genealogy of the relevant people:

 

Friedrich Hermann von Schönburg auf Wesel, 1640 Graf von Schönburg [Schomberg], 1663 Conde de Mertola, Comte de Courbet et de Vitry-en-Brie, 1689 Duke of Schomberg, Marquess of Harwich, Earl of Brentford and Baron Teyes [with remainder of British titles to 5th son, then 3rd son, then other sons] (Heidelberg 6 Dec 1615-k.a.the Boyne 1 Jul 1690); m.1st 30 Apr 1638 his first cousin Johanna Elisabeth von Schönburg auf Wesel (d.Geisenheim 21 Mar 1664); m.2nd 14 Apr 1669 Susanne d’Aumale (d.Dohna Palace, Berlin 1688)
1.Friedrich Gf von Schönburg, Conde de Mertola (Oberwesel 14 Mar 1640-Geisenheim 5 Dec 1700); m.1st (div) Katharina Ernestina von Bocholtz (d.30 Aug 1716); m.2nd 1684 Amalie Charlotte Veronika Freiin von Spaen (1661-1731)
1.1.Maria Wilhelmine Elisabeth; m.1703 Friedrich Graf zu Sayn-Wittgenstein (1674-27 Mar 1723)
1.1.1.Friedrich Karl Gf zu Sayn-Wittgenstein (6 Mar 1716-15 Oct 1743); m.17/18 Oct 1741 Salome Johanna von Diest, cr Gfn von Diest (4 Apr 1723-11 Jul 1761)
1.1.2.Sophie Amalie (14 Mar 1708-30 Jul 1727); m.1723 Dietrich Frhr von Wylich (1690-1731)
1.1.2.1.Luise Amalie Sophie Frn von Wylich (1727-18 Jul 1748); m.1746 Wilhelm Hilmar von Grappendorff
2.Meinrad Gf von Schönburg, cr 1691 Duke of Leinster, Earl of Bangor and Baron of Tara, suc 1693 as 3rd Duke of Schomberg (Köln 30 Jun 1641-Hillingdon 5 Jul 1719); m.1st La Rochelle 3 Aug 1667 Barbara Luisa Rizzi; m.2nd 4 Jan 1683 Karoline Elisabeth, Raugräfin (19 Nov 1659-Kensington 28 Jun 1696)
2.1.Charles Louis, Marquess of Harwich (15 Dec 1683-5 Oct 1713)
2.2.Frederica Suzanne, Cdsa de Mertola (1688-7 Aug 1751); m.1st 1715 Robert D’Arcy, 3rd Earl of Holderness (d.20 Jan 1722); m.2nd 18 Jun 1724 Benjamin Mildmay, Earl Fitzwalter (d.29 Feb 1756)
2.2.1.Robert Darcy, 4th Earl of Holderness, b.17 May 1718, d.Syon Hill 16 May 1778; m.The Hague 29 Oct 1743 Mary Doublet (d.London 13 Oct 1801)
2.2.1.1.Lady Amelia Darcy, Bss Darcy & Conyers, b.12 Oct 1754, d.27 Jan 1784; m.1st London 29 Nov 1773 (div 1779) Francis Godolphin-Osborne, Marquess of Carmarthen [later, 5th Duke of Leeds] (29 Jan 1751-31 Jan 1799); m.2d London 1779 John Byron (7 Feb 1756-10 Apr 1786)
2.2.1.1.1.George William Frederick Osborne, 6th Duke of Leeds, b.London 21 Jul 1775, d.London 10 Jul 1838; m.East Rainham, Norfolk 17 Aug 1797 Lady Charlotte Townshend (b.16 Mar 1776, d.Hornby Castle 30 Jul 1856)
2.2.1.1.1.1.Francis Godolphin D'Arcy-Osborne, 7th Duke of Leeds, b.London 21 May 1798, d.London 12 May 1859; m.Chelsea 24 Apr 1828 Catherine Caton (d.St.Leonard's on Sea 8 Apr 1874)
2.2.1.1.1.2.Lady Charlotte Osborne, d.17 Jan 1836; m.22 May 1826 Sackville Lane Fox (d.18 Aug 1874)
2.2.1.1.1.2.1.Sackville George Lane-Fox, 12th Lord Conyers, de jure Lord Darcy, b.London 14 Sep 1827, d.St.Clare, Walmer, Kent 24 Aug 1888; m.London 14 Aug 1860 Mary Curteis (b.London 15 Feb 1841, d.12 Nov 1921)
2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.Marcia Amelia Mary Lane-Fox, Bss Darcy, Conyers & Fauconberge (Wellesbourne 18 Oct 1863-Brocklesby 17 Nov 1926); m.London 5 Aug 1886 Charles Alfred Worsley Pelham, 4th Earl of Yarborough (London 11 Jun 1859-London 12 Jul 1936)
2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.Sackville George Pelham, 5th Earl of Yarborough (17 Dec 1888-7 Feb 1948); m.23 Sep 1919 Nancye Brocklehurst (d.27 Oct 1977)
2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.Lady Diana Mary Pelham, b.5 Jul 1920; m.15 Nov 1952 Robert Miller (d.Harare 1990)
3.Charles Gf von Schönburg, 1690 2nd Duke of Schomberg (Hertogenbosch 5 Aug 1645-Turin 16 Oct 1693)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/peerage-news/-/QUWB2Ec4NloJ.
To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7226 (20120616) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[marquess]

Are there any more baronies by writ that will automatically come out of abeyance on the death of anyone?

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:56:53 PM UTC+7, Richard R wrote:

[Turenne]

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to peerage-news+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7226 (20120616) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Hello Paul

A friend advises me that according to Martins Zuquete, Afonso Eduardo (com a colaboracão de Acacio Casimiro)
Nobreza de Portugal e do Brasil
Lisboa 1960/61. 3a edição Lisboa: Edições Zairol, Lda. 2000; 4 vols
Vol. II, p. 735-737

the 1st Count of Mértola was the only one.

2) "The Complete Peerage" outlines the descent (of the alleged right) to the comital title until the 9th Baroness Conyers.

RL

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I'm trying to understand this-- the new baroness had 2 daughters and
gave the eldest one to her sister (who changed her name) to raise.

Does anyone know the story?

Thanks.

Brooke

On Jun 16, 10:56 am, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Following the death of one of the two co-heiresses to the baronies of
> FAUCONBERG (E 1283) and CONYERS (E 1509), the 1948 abeyance has terminated
> in favour of the remaining co-heiress (see below)
>
> From the Telegraph of 24 May 2012:
>
> LYCETT  June Wendy died Thursday 17th May 2012. Much loved and missed by
> family and friends. All enquiries to John Bardgett and Sons 01661 822982.
> Family flowers only. No letters please.
>
> Lady June Wendy LYCETT (1924-2012) was the younger dau of the 5th Earl of

> YARBOROUGH (1888-1948), who was also the 8th Baron FAUCONBERG and 14thBaron CONYERS. She m 1959, Maj Michael Hildesley Lycett LYCETT CBE. They

[Tracey Lowndes]

Yes, I've always wondered about that, ever since I saw the elder daughter's details in Debrett's 2007.  I did a Google search on her a long time ago - apparently her mother didn't want her. Then the little girl was involved in a plane crash in Africa in which her foster mother died and which she herself was burned. I also found a mention of a magazine article on her back in the early '60s. That's all I can recall at the moment - it was a long time ago, and I haven't run the search again since. But I'd like more on this story!

[John Horton]

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard R
Sent: 16 June 2012 15:57
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: FAUCONBERG (E 1283) and CONYERS (E 1509) baronies automatically terminated upon the death of one of the two co-heiresses

 

The Hon Marcia Anne MILLER, renamed on adoption as Anthea Theresa LYCETT (b 21 June 1954). She was adopted by her aunt (see above) and uncle. She is unm and lives in Gloucestershire.

 

Did she become the Hon. Anthea Theresa Lycett? I seem to recall the law makes it clear that one cannot gain rights to a peerage through adoption. Is the reverse true? Can I lose rights to a courtesy title through adoption?

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

[marquess]

You can't lose your right to a courtesy title through adoption as you are still the legitimate issue of a peer.

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:56:53 PM UTC+7, Richard R wrote:

[John Horton]

I thought that must be the case (I couldn’t imagine it otherwise), but had never seen it stated anywhere.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/peerage-news/-/fzTbDulmxhgJ.

To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.

[pyvery]

The other Barony by writ that is in abeyance with two co-heiresses is Furnivall (E 1295)

Since the death of the 19th baroness in 1968 it has been in abeyance she had two daughters

Hon Rosemary Dent b 1933,who is now a nun

Hon Mrs patricia Bence b 1935 who has a son Frncis Hornsby b 1958

[marquess]

Thanks for that I knew there was one more barony in a similar situation

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:56:53 PM UTC+7, Richard R wrote:

[Michael Rhodes]

On Tuesday, 19 June 2012 23:47:07 UTC+1, marquess wrote:

Thanks for that I knew there was one more barony in a similar situation

Are we likely to see the barony of Audley (cr by Letters Patent circa 1312) called out of abeyance? The late peer (the 25th baron) left three daughters and co-heiresses at hisb decease in 1997.

[Patrick Perceval]

I dont know.I suppose it depends whether the younger sisters agree as in the Howard de walden situation.

I have to wish for some of the old Baronies that the earl of Loudoun has part fractions in for there to be a family agreement so that some of his non noble relations could become peers .

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/peerage-news/-/-DOGLa3GuRUJ.

[marquess]

If there are three daughters as co heirs then two would have to die without issue for the third to inherit automatically.

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:56:53 PM UTC+7, Richard R wrote:

[Richard R]

All three co-heiresses currently have issue (the eldest has issue with issue). The dau. of the youngest co-hss appears to have been born out of wedlock, so that child would not be in the running to inherit honours.

[marquess]

What would be the situation if there were three co-heirs who all had sons and they all died whilst their sons were living. Would the barony automatically go to the son of the eldest dau, or would the abeyance still need to be terminated by petition?

[Richard R]

The sons of all three co-heirs would have an equal share in the barony and so it would not automatically terminate in anyone's favour.

[John Horton]

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of marquess
Sent: 23 June 2012 14:15
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FAUCONBERG (E 1283) and CONYERS (E 1509) baronies automatically terminated upon the death of one of the two co-heiresses

 

What would be the situation if there were three co-heirs who all had sons and they all died whilst their sons were living. Would the barony automatically go to the son of the eldest dau, or would the abeyance still need to be terminated by petition?

The three co-heirs each have an equal share i.e. one third. The eldest son of each co-heir inherits his mother’s share. In the above situation, therefore, there would be three grandsons with a one-third share each.

 

Take something more complicated: suppose one daughter has three sons, the second two daughters (and no sons) and the third daughter herself three daughters (and no sons). On the death of the three daughters, the eldest grandson has a one-third share (i.e. inherits his mother’s share exclusively – his brothers have nothing), but the various grand-daughters split their respective mothers’ shares. The daughters of the second daughter therefore have a one-sixth share each (one third split equally between two) and the daughters of the third daughter have a one-ninth share each (one third split equally between three).   

 

 

 

On Saturday, June 23, 2012 5:28:41 PM UTC+7, Richard R wrote:

All three co-heiresses currently have issue (the eldest has issue with issue). The dau. of the youngest co-hss appears to have been born out of wedlock, so that child would not be in the running to inherit honours.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/peerage-news/-/8FXDLbpOcDgJ.

To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.

[marquess]

Yes that is an interesting situation, but  at the end of the day the abeyance can be terminated in favour of any of them by agreement.

On Monday, June 25, 2012 3:21:02 PM UTC+7, john....@nottingham.ac.uk wrote:

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerage-news@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of marquess
Sent: 23 June 2012 14:15
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FAUCONBERG (E 1283) and CONYERS (E 1509) baronies automatically terminated upon the death of one of the two co-heiresses

 

What would be the situation if there were three co-heirs who all had sons and they all died whilst their sons were living. Would the barony automatically go to the son of the eldest dau, or would the abeyance still need to be terminated by petition?

The three co-heirs each have an equal share i.e. one third. The eldest son of each co-heir inherits his mother’s share. In the above situation, therefore, there would be three grandsons with a one-third share each.

 

Take something more complicated: suppose one daughter has three sons, the second two daughters (and no sons) and the third daughter herself three daughters (and no sons). On the death of the three daughters, the eldest grandson has a one-third share (i.e. inherits his mother’s share exclusively – his brothers have nothing), but the various grand-daughters split their respective mothers’ shares. The daughters of the second daughter therefore have a one-sixth share each (one third split equally between two) and the daughters of the third daughter have a one-ninth share each (one third split equally between three).   

 

 

 

On Saturday, June 23, 2012 5:28:41 PM UTC+7, Richard R wrote:

All three co-heiresses currently have issue (the eldest has issue with issue). The dau. of the youngest co-hss appears to have been born out of wedlock, so that child would not be in the running to inherit honours.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/peerage-news/-/8FXDLbpOcDgJ.
To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to peerage-news+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.