The Dukedom of Somerset

[marquess]

It has baffled me why the heir to the dukedom does not assume the
courtsey title of earl of St Maur, even though no such title exists
anymore but had existed. If the son of an earl can assume a courtsey
viscountcy when there isn't one and moreover one where the title does
not even exist. Why have the dukes of Somerset not done so? Still I
suppose that it will only be a matter of time before the dukedom
merges with the marquisate of Hertford, where there are plenty of
titles to choose from.

[JonnyK]

What's the situation with heirs and collaterals with the Somerset
line, is there any immediate danger?

[Turenne]

marquess wrote:

>It has baffled me why the heir to the dukedom does not assume the
>courtsey title of earl of St Maur, even though no such title exists
>anymore but had existed.

Since the earldom does not exist, I don't see how he could assume the
title.
I believe however that Lord Seymour has the same precedence as a
marquess.

Richard L

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Lord Seymour, the heir, turned 26 on Feb. 3. He is already married
(in 2006) but has no children as yet.

His younger brother, Lord Charles, is 10 years younger (b. 1992).

Next in line is the Duke's brother, Lord Francis, b. 1956. He has 4
children, including 1 son, Webb. b. 1990.

I would say the Dukedom is safe for at least another generation or
two. Certainly it is in better shape then let's say, Leinster.

Brooke

[Phoen]

There are many more heirs in the line of the Marquesses of Hertford,
therefore I would say that the dukedom will see the next century
certainly.

~~~~~
Phoen

[marquess]

Yes but it did exist 1863 it was created but then became extinct.
There is not much point in having the precedence of marquess if your
children are simply styled the Hon. The dukedom will eventually go to
the younger branch of the family, I would say otherwise if the younger
brother had had three sons and one dau.

[Peter FitzGerald]

The simple answer is that peers generally don't do that, because real
titles are overwhelmingly preferred to invented (or extinct) ones.
There would indeed be nothing stopping him doing that (although I
would think it more likely that if His Grace were desperate for a
higher title for his heir he would style him Marquess Seymour or Earl
Seymour, merely raising his barony to a higher degree (or using an
invented surname title, depending on how you look at it) rather than
reviving an extinct title - and of course the Earldom of St Maur
[which, incidentally, was simply "Earl St Maur" rather than "Earl of
St Maur"] was created at a time when the Dukes of Somerset were
calling themselves "St Maur" rather than "Seymour"), but then there
would also be nothing stopping the Duke of Norfolk styling his heir
Marquess of Arundel (or Marquess Howard), or the Duke of Manchester
styling his heir "Marquess of Mandeville" and his second heir "Earl of
Kimbolton", and so on and so forth, but they generally just don't. Not
a very satisfactory answer, unfortunately, but then as I'm sure you
know these things all too often boil down to "that's just the way it
is"!

[JonnyK]

Peter FitzGerald is right, peers cannot simply upgrade their courtesy
titles from baron to viscount, viscount to earl etc. simply because
their heir happens to have the precedence of a marquess, as is the
case with dukes such as Somerset.

While it appears unusual for the heir to the highest rank of peer to
have a barony as a courtesy title, as with Somerset, it seems a
reflection of the age of the particular title (although it is unusual
that Baron Seymour is the only subsidiary title with the dukedom,
normally dukes are amply provided with other titles).

The present Somerset title is the fifth creation dating from 1547.
This seems to be a practice with older dukedoms eg. Buccleuch's heir
is an earl not a marquess, along with Northumberland, and the Caroline
dukedoms Richmond (Earl of March), Grafton (Earl of Euston) and St.
Albans (Earl of Burford).

What is an interesting point, while discussing the question of
courtesy titles, is the assumption of courtesy viscountcies by a
handful of Irish earls.

For eg. the Earl of Granard's heir is known as Viscount Forbes when no
such title was created but where a real subsidiary title, Baron
Clanehugh, is available. The Earl of Enniskillen is rightfully Baron
Mountflorence but his heir and those before him have been styled
Viscount Cole, whilst the Earl of Donoughmore also appears to be
Viscount Hutchinson but his heir is styled Viscount Suirdale, a nod to
the River Suir which flows alongside the former family seat in Co
Tipperary.

One might be tempted to ask why these assumed titles are allowed, the
real question is why actual courtesy viscountcies were not created for
those earldoms that did not have them, such as Belmore and Caledon
(who have attached assumed viscountcies to the family name) or simply
'upgrade' existing subsidiary baronies to viscountcies?

[Turenne]

JonnyK wrote:

>One might be tempted to ask why these assumed titles are allowed,

Basically, they're not allowed; but who's to stop them. The current
Earl of Durham called himself Baron Durham when his father disclaimed
his earldom and abrogated his son's courtesy viscouncy. In the past
The House of Lords might have had something to say on the matter, but
these days they simply don't bother. Irish peerages, and the courtesy
titles that are associated with them, are by definition beyond the
control of the relevent UK authorities.

Richard L

[JonnyK]

Surely, Richard, Irish peerages have nothing to do with authorities in
the Republic of Ireland and remain under UK jurisdiction?

Irish peerages were created by letters patent from the Sovereign like
every other peer. And recall that only last April the Lord Chancellor
ruled on the disputed Dukedom of Leinster, ruling in favour of the son
of the late 8th Duke and not the claimant from California.

[Turenne]

Yep - sorry, I should have stopped while I was on a roll....:)

Richard L

[zetland]

The answer to the original query lies in the history of the peerage.
in 1536, Edward Seymour was made Viscount Beauchamp. On 1547 he was
made Duke of Somerset, Earl of Hertford, and Baron Seymour, all with
remainder to the issue male of his second wife, whom failing to the
issue male of the first wife. In 1552 he lost his head and the
titles, His son by the second wife, who, bur for the attainder, would
have been Duke was made Earl of Hertford and Baron Beauchamp with the
usual remainder. New creation not restoration of the original
titles. In 1660, the descendant (by now Marquess of Hertford) was
restored to the original dukedom and Baron Seymour, all of the other
title of the original grantee having been subsequently recreated for
his descendants. In 1750 the issue male of Edward Seymour's second
son became extinct as did all of his titles since they were NOT
restored. The only titles which remained to pass to the descendants
of the original duke first son were the dukedom and the barony that
were restored.

[marquess]

So the trick would be for the current duke to get the attainder
reversed for the the Viscountcy and Earldom, it shouldn't take too
much to prove that he is rightful heir, though of course an act of
parliament would be something else!

[marquess]

I noticed that Debretts 2000 says that a marquisate became extinct in
1675, yet I saw no listing of any such creation?

[Turenne]

marquess wrote:

>I noticed that Debretts 2000 says that a marquisate became extinct in
>1675, yet I saw no listing of any such creation?

Do you mean the marquessate of Somerset? Isn't that a title that
resided with the Beauforts?

http://books.google.com/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=1st+marquess+of+somerset&source=web&ots=4THUy58bfH&sig=Cmh1ur4It14LtxE0v8IUZ8-whqw

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/s088/f378384.htm

http://www.geneall.net/U/per_page.php?id=113839

Richard L

[marquess]

Died 1675 when the marquessate of Hertford became extinct and he was
succeeded in his estates by his neice (sister of 3rd Duke). No not
Beaufort, I think that Debretts may have made a mistake here, but I
happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

On 17 Feb, 11:26, Turenne <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
> marquess wrote:
> >I noticed that Debretts 2000 says that a marquisate became extinct in
> >1675, yet I saw no listing of any such creation?
>
> Do you mean the marquessate of Somerset? Isn't that a title that
> resided with the Beauforts?
>

> http://books.google.com/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=1...

[Phoen]

Perhaps this helps:
The title Duke of Somerset, created 1537 and forfeited in 1552, was
finally restored in 1660 for William Seymour, 1st Marquess of
Hertford, a great-grandson of the 1st duke. With the death of John
Seymour, 4th Duke of Somerset and 3rd Marquess of Hertford in 1675 the
marquessate, created 1640, became extinct. However in the dukedom, he
was succeeded by Francis Seymour, 5th Duke of Somerset (1658-1678),
oldest son of Charles Seymour, 2nd Baron Seymour of Trowbridge (c.
1621-1665) and grandson of a younger brother of the 2nd duke or 1st
marquess.

~~~~~
Phoen

[June Ferguson]

My sources show them as (Marquess or Earls of Worcester)

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=royals&id=I66835

I am new at this so please forgive me if I am wrong.

June

[Phoen]

The Earls and Marquesses of Worcester and later Dukes of Beaufort are
descended from Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (1436-1464). This
dukedom of Somerset was another creation and was forfeited with his
death.

~~~~~
Phoen

On 18 Feb., 15:36, "June Ferguson" <fergy2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> My sources show them as (Marquess or Earls of Worcester)
>

> http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=...

>
> I am new at this so please forgive me if I am wrong.
>
> June
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Turenne" <rick.lich...@virgin.net>
> To: "Peerage News" <Peerag...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: The Dukedom of Somerset
>
> > marquess wrote:
>
> >>I noticed that Debretts 2000 says that a marquisate became extinct in
> >>1675, yet I saw no listing of any such creation?
>
> > Do you mean the marquessate of Somerset? Isn't that a title that
> > resided with the Beauforts?
>

> >http://books.google.com/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=1...

[marquess]

forfeited with his death or extinct with his death? I know that the
complete peerage has a foot note in which there is a letter of
complaint from the Somersets, about not being able to get the dukedom
of Somerset it having been revived for the Seymours. Re the question
of the marquisate and other titles of 1640, why were they not created
in tail mail, knowing that there was a possibility that they could
merge with an older and more distinguished dukedom, and also that the
1640 were in part a recreation of titles that had been forfeited
earlier.?

[Phoen]

1st Question:
Henry, a Lancastrian, was beheaded after the Battle of Hexham and his
titles were forfeited. His son Charles, later 1st Earl of Worcester,
was born illegitimately and therefore unable to claim the dukedom, so
it went theoretically to Henry's younger brother Edmund. He was styled
Duke of Somerset by the Lancastrians, but wasn't officially
recognized. With his death after the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471 - he
was also beheaded - the dukedom became extinct in any case.

2nd Question:
I have no idea :) - but you might find this article interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Seymour%2C_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset