the collaterals of the marquisate of Bath

[marquess]

Perusing through my 2000 copy of Debretts (which shall soon be
replaced by the 2008 edition this Sat when it gets here hopefully!) am
I correct in assuming that there isn't a male Thynne/Thynn heir born
later than 1977, in the form of Richard Grenville Thynne? I would seem
that surely some of those Thynnes born in 70's should have done the
trick by now? I know that Lucien the child of the late Lord Valentine
has married and has a couple of girls.

[Richard R]

Quite right Marquess, there have been no male line Thynnes born since
1977 (two births in that year - nos 5 & 8 below). The good news is
there was a marriage in 2006 (see 5 below) but the bad news is the
union has only produced a daughter so far. The current line of
succession to the marquessate is:

1 Viscount Weymouth, b 1974 and unmarried
2 Lord Christopher John Thynne, b 1934, m 1968 and had a daughter
3 Lucien Henry Valentine Thynne, b 1965, m 1998 and has two daughters
4 Sheridan Ulric Thynne, b 1939, m 1964 and had 1 son (see 5) and
three daughters
5 Piers Mark Thynne, b 1977, m 2006 and has a daughter
6 Bevil Grenville de Jenner Thynne, b 1947, m 1970 and had two sons
(see 7 and 8)
7 Christopher John Grenville Thynne, b 1972 and unmarried
8 Richard Charles Grenville Thynne, b 1977 and unmarried
9 Richard George Grenville Thynne (brother of 6), b 1950, m twice
(1973 and 1990) and has a son by 1st m (see 10)
10 Piers James Carteret Thynne, b 1976 and unmarried

Good news that you're getting the 08 Debrett. I'm sure you'll have
many happy hours, days, weeks, months and years going through it!

[marquess]

Thanks Richard, my mother bought me a copy on special order last Nov
but have had to wait for someone to bring it from London to Bangkok. A
couple of boys for number 5 would do the trick. I am not sure about
Weymouth I know that his girlfriend died some years back in a fire,
does anyone know if he has been seeing anyone since. I read an
interview with him on his 30th in the Evening Standard, he seems a bit
more conventional than his father.

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

Weymouth has a girlfriend at present and perhaps will settle down
eventually.. No real rush in life and peerage titles as a whole is not
all in ones life.. Weymouth is a banking industry i think..

[marquess]

Yes it did say that in the interview that he was in banking, the
peerage title is not all, but Longleat probably plays big part, and
producing and heir to pass it on to, might perhaps be a matter of some
small importance. Here is the link to the interview, by the way I
think that the marquisate of Bath is probably the only one never to
have had an earldom attached to it? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-11369783-details/article.do

On 27 Oct, 23:02, "www.maltagenealogy.com" <tancarvil...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Richard R]

I think the degree of marquess was used overwhelmingly for the
promotion of mainly earls. But there were a few others without
earldoms. Here's a summary of the first 12 English creations of the
title (which covers up to the end of the reign of Elizabeth I):
1 The first marquessate, of Dublin, was created in 1385 without an
earldom but then it was granted as a promotion to the 9th Earl of
Oxford and may, in that sense, be said to have had an earldom attached
to it.
2 & 3 The next 2 creations (Dorset in 1397 & 1443) were promotions for
existing Earls.
4 Suffolk cr 1444 was to promote the Earl of that name.
5 Montagu cr 1470 was in compensation to an earl who resigned his
earldom (Northumberland) so that it could be restored to the Percys,
so had no earldom attached to it.
6 Dorset was cr again in 1475 upon the surrender of the earldom of
Huntingdon, so had no earldom attached to it.
7 Berkeley cr 1489 was a promotion for the 1st Earl of Nottingham (cr
1483).
8 Exeter cr 1525 was a promotion for the Earl of Devon.
9 Anne Boleyn’s marquessate, Pembroke, was granted without any other
titles.
10 Northampton cr 1547 was a promotion for the 1st Earl of Essex
(Catherine Parr’s brother. He was attainted in 1553, when all his
honours were forfeit. (12) He was cr Marquess of Northampton again in
1559 but his other honours (the Essex earldom and Parr barony)
remained under attainder. So, for his second creation, he had no
earldom attached to the title).
11 Winchester cr 1551 was a promotion for the Earl of Wiltshire.

I think the first two Scots marquessates were cr in 1599. One (Huntly)
was a promotion for the 6th Earl of Huntly, which was created with the
earldom of Enzie and lordship of Gordon of Badenoch. The other
(Hamilton) was for the younger son of an earl and was created with the
earldom of Arran and the lordship of Aven.

I think the first Irish marquessate (Kildare) was cr in 1761 as a
promotion for the 20th Earl of Kildare. He was later promoted to the
Dukedom of Leinster.

On 28 Oct, 11:15, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes it did say that in the interview that he was in banking, the
> peerage title is not all, but Longleat probably plays big part, and
> producing and heir to pass it on to, might perhaps be a matter of some
> small importance. Here is the link to the interview, by the way I
> think that the marquisate of Bath is probably the only one never to

> have had an earldom attached to it?http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-11369783-details/article.do

> > > > > has married and has a couple of girls.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Turenne]

Richard R wrote:

>The other (Hamilton) was for the younger son of an earl and was created with the earldom of Arran and the lordship of Aven.

John Hamilton, 1st Marquess of Hamilton was the 3rd son of the 2nd
Earl of Arran, so the earldom was already in existence when he was
elevated to the marquessate. The current holder is the eldest son of
the 5th Duke of Abercorn.

Richard L

[marquess]

The point that I was making about Bath, was that it has no earldom and
never had had one either. Which is unusual!

[Richard R]

Thanks Marquess for the clarification. And, to clarify my
contribution, my supplementary point was that Bath wasn't alone in
that unusual position.
Referring to Richard L's point about the Marquessate of Hamilton. I'm
sorry I didn't make myself clear. I didn't include it in my list as a
marquessate created without an earldom but rather, as I'd listed early
English creations, I thought it might be useful to list early Scots
and Irish creations as well. As to Hamilton being attached to an
existing earldom, it wasn't. Not in the sense of the new Marquess
holding or inheriting the existing earldom of Arran (cr 1503). That
went to his elder brother and has, according to the Complete Peerage
(Vol 1 p 224) been dormant since 1651. The marquess was granted with
it's own earldom and lordship as I indicate in my original note.

> > Richard L- Hide quoted text -