BUTLER, Hon Theo Oliver Stafford (b 2016)

[Richard R]

From the Telegraph and Times of 8 April 2016: BUTLER - On 11th October 2015 to Viscount and Viscountess Mountgarret, a son, Theo Oliver Stafford.

The 18th Viscount MOUNTGARRET (b 1961). He m 1st 1995 (div 2000) Laura Brown GARY d of Mrs Albert Dickens Williams Jr of Lake Forest, Illinois, USA, and had 2 daus.. He m 2nd 2006 Fenella M (b 1965 reg Q2 Cheshire) d of David S FAWCUS and (m 1961 reg Q4 Cheshire) __ WOOD. Their dau, Hon Venetia Ellice Cara was b 2013.

Lord Mountgarret now has an heir apparent to the title. The only other known person in the line of succession is Lord Mountgarret's brother Hon Edmund Henry Richard BUTLER (b 1962), who was briefly married in the late '80s and is now unm with no issue.

[Peter FitzGerald]

If Lord Mountgarret took the necessary steps to claim the Earldoms of Ormonde and Ossory to which it is generally believed he is the heir, Theo would be a courtesy peer. In the past heirs were styled Viscount Thurles, which would remain the senior subsidiary title, though it is possible they would now use Viscount Mountgarret to recognise its status for this branch of the family.

[marquess]

I recall seeing in Burkes that there were some Butlers living in Sweden born in the late 50' and early 60's who are in remainder to the viscountcy.  So I believe the current viscount's brother is not the only heir. 

[Richard R]

Unless of course, Burke's has since been proved wrong, which we can't entirely discount.

[S. Jones]

Two small remarks:

- The year of birth should be 2015, not 2016.
- Lord Mountgarret could very well also be the holder of the earldoms of Ormonde and Ossory. However, the viscountcy of Thurles was created for the elder brother of the 1st Viscount Mountgarret, without a special remainder if I'm not mistaken. If Lord Mountgarret is some day confirmed as the holder of the earldoms, that would inevitably also mean that the Thurles title is extinct. The courtesy title for the heir would then logically be Viscount Mountgarret.

S. Jones

[Richard R]

Thanks S Jones for the correction regarding the date. Some people are very tardy when announcing a birth but that's not excuse for my not noticing it!

[Michael Rhodes]

The late Lord Dunboyne strongly disputed Viscount Mountgarret's claim to the earldoms.

[Michael Rhodes]

The Viscountess is over 50?

[Netty]

Op dinsdag 12 april 2016 14:03:37 UTC+2 schreef Michael Rhodes:

The Viscountess is over 50?

It appears so, according to Ancestry. 

[G. Willis]

Leaving aside my poor ability to discern age from appearance, the lady that appears alongside Mountgarret- and whom I therefore assume to be his wife Fenella (possibly identified directly other than just as 'F', but I haven't gone through them all!)- in the photos here (his own site) http://mountgarret.com/page8.php , would appear to fit with the 1965 birthdate already provided.

[Michael Rhodes]

Just a thought, but because the birth date is so much earlier than the newspaper announcement and given the age of the viscountess ___  could this be an adoption??????

I have seen such announcements before of this nature.

[G. Willis]

I believe you might be on to something here, Michael; looking at some of the pictures, e.g. this one, where the parents are with the newborn Venetia, according to the caption 'two minutes old' http://mountgarret.com/page8.php?view=preview&category=82&image=926 it seems unlikely the Viscountess is the birth mother... but I'd hate to be thought to be trying to say anything definitive one way or the other on such a matter with such limited evidence!

[Richard R]

My view is the Viscountess is the birth mother. My view (eg I don't know for sure)

[Netty]

Op dinsdag 19 april 2016 09:14:20 UTC+2 schreef Richard R:

My view is the Viscountess is the birth mother. My view (eg I don't know for sure)

There are more picture galleries on that page, among them one from the summer of 2015 or so. She doesn't look at all pregnant. And as G. Willis says - two minutes after giving birth standing on a picture fully dressed ... don't think most women are capable of it.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

So is there a  a question as to whether or not little Theo is the heir apparent?

Brooke

[marquess]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:40:43 PM UTC+7, Richard R wrote:

Could it be that a surrogacy has been used, with Viscountess and Viscount's sperm and egg, in which case even though she may not be the birth mother the child will still be in succession to the viscountacy?