Weymouth/McQuiston marriage

[Michael Rhodes]

_.The marriage took place at Longleat, 8 June, 2013,  between Ceawlin Thynn, styled Viscount Weymouth (b 6 June, 1974), son and heir of the 6th Marquess of Bath (b 6 May, 1932), of Longleat, by his wife, the former Anna Gyarmathy, & Emma Clare A. McQuiston (b 1986), daughter of Ladi Jadesimi & Mrs Suzanna McQuiston (nee________).

The bride is a half-sister of Iain McQuiston, husband of Lord Weymouth's aunt, Lady Silvy Cerne Thynne.


-=-

[Mary-Ann]

Some interesting information about Emma's family may be found here,
including her mother's name:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2304840/Britains-black-Marchioness-upwardly-mobile-family.html

On Jun 9, 3:47 pm, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[Richard R]

Fascinating, thanks Mary-Ann

[Dr Raveem Ismail]

As the DM points out, this would make McQuiston one of the few if not first black marchioness.

I've previously raised the question of Tony Blair mentioning of the hereditaries: "Would anyone come up with such a chronically unrepresentative Chamber as the current House of Lords, which contains 759 hereditary peers, of whom one is black, one is Asian and 14 are women. Half the 759 went to Eton.":

- http://goo.gl/haLJR (this group)

- http://goo.gl/jIwFz (Lords of the Blog "Too White, Too Straight, Too Male").

On the latter website, Lord Taylor was unable to answer which of the hereditaries was black, leading me to think that there has never been a creation for a black commoner. 

This marriage, if she produces heirs, would mean the next marquess after Ceawlin Thynn will be black (according to the one drop rule). The only other example I can think of is the next Duke of Westminster's wife who, if I recall, is descended from Abram Petrovich Gannibal via Pushkin, meaning the future duke will have black ancestry (albeit very far removed). 

Not that this means much in the grand scheme of things, but given the lack of creations, it is just interesting to note the broadening ancestry of future hereditary peers.

Raveem.

On Sunday, 9 June 2013 08:26:00 UTC+1, Richard R wrote:

Fascinating, thanks Mary-Ann

[Michael Rhodes]

There is a black viscountess in the peerage today.

[marquess]

Surely she is not the first black peeress (wife of an hereditary peer), wasn't Lord Gifford married to black woman in Jamaica? But perhaps the first viscountess?

[Shinjinee]

An earl of Stamford, the 8th Earl (1812-1890) who succeeded 1883, was married thirdly in 1880 to a Martha Solomon, a lady described as light brown, so probably coloured rather than pure African (daughter of a free slave Rebecca by a man named Solomon from Wellington), in South Africa.  Unfortunately, he was a black sheep sent out there in disgrace, and his marriage took place after the birth of some children.  So there has been a black countess, who married into an ancient family, no less. (The 8th Earl reformed after his third marriage, and tried to save and earn money to provide for his two children by his third wife).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Grey,_8th_Earl_of_Stamford

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Grey

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TS18920705.2.13&l=mi&e=-------10--1----2--

http://www.jeffreygreen.co.uk/099-african-heirs-1887-1892

The 8th Earl left a son John (b 8 October 1877) who married in turn and left a son John (b. 1905) who emigrated to New Zealand. Unfortunately, the son was illegitimate by English common law and peerage law, since Harry Grey didn't marry his housekeeper mistress until Dec 1880. I don't know if there are any descendants of the grandson John Grey. Another daughter Frances Grey (b 29 October 1879; d ca 1883 of smallpox) was also born before the marriage.  (Harry Grey's first wife died in 1874, but he didn't remarry until 1880). The legitimate daughter Lady Mary Grey (b 1881) married and divorced an English poet, and had issue 2 sons who were at least 1/8th African, I assume.

If Harry Grey had bothered to marry Martha Solomon(s) before his son's birth, the Stamford earldom might have lasted longer.  (Perhaps, he wasn't sure of the whereabouts of his first wife, or whether Martha was free to marry him...) 

The 7th Earl of Stamford died without issue in 1883 (his second wife being a bareback circus rider), the 8th Earl married thrice but had issue only by his third wife, the 9th Earl William had one son and one daughter, and the 10th Earl Roger (d 1976) was a recluse who never married.  

BTW the widow of the 8th Earl and her children John and Lady Mary Grey and their guardians helped the 9th Earl establish his claim to the earldom in 1892.  The 8th Earl himself acknowledged his cousin William (future 9th Earl) as his heir, and stated that his son was illegitimate.  There was no counter-claim on John's part, as the 9th Earl was at pains to acknowledge.  The Dowager Countess remarried (another Coloured man I believe) and ceased to use the title.  John, both illegitimate and mixed-race, was raised in South Africa, while his legitimate sister Lady Mary eventually came to England.  I don't know how society would have reacted had the son been legitimate and 9th Earl Grey, instead of his father's cousin

Shinjinee

[Dr Raveem Ismail]

Many thanks: very interesting!

[Michael Rhodes]

Viscount and Viscountess Weymouth expect their first child in Nov 2014:-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10921003/New-heir-for-Longleat-as-Viscountess-Weymouth-announces-pregnancy.html

[marquess]

Interesting I hadn't realised that the marquis had not attended his only son's wedding, lets hope that the child will be  a boy so that it can succeed to the marquisate.

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 12:47:52 PM UTC+7, Michael Rhodes wrote: