Henry Howard, (1694-1758), 4th Earl of Carlisle
Doug Smith
Howard, 4th Earl of Carlisle by Frances Spencer and Isabella Byron, as
well as any know illegimate children?
Doug Smith
Kelsey J. Williams
Hello,
Here they are:
Issue by Frances, dau. of Charles Spencer, 2nd Earl of Sunderland (d.
1742):
1. Charles, styled Viscount Morpeth. bap. 22 May 1719, St. James's,
Westminster. M.P. (Whig) for co. York, May 1741 to death. d. unm. &
v.po. 9 Aug 1741 & bu. at Castle Howard. (CP III: 36).
2. Robert, styled Viscount Morpeth. b. 9 Feb & bap. 4 Mar 1725/6 at
St. Anne's, Westminster. d. unm. & v.p. 20 Oct 1743 & bu. at Castle
Howard. (CP III: 36).
3. Arabella. m. 14 Sep 1741 to Jonathan Cope, son & heir of Sir
Jonathan Cope, Bt., of Brewerne Abbey, co. Oxford. d. 1746. (BP
[1970], 479; Ruvigny, Exeter: 385).
4. Diana. m. 1740 to Thomas Duncombe, of Helmesley, co. York. d. 6
Mar 1770. (BP [1970], 479; Ruvigny, Exeter: 385).
Issue by Isabella, dau. of William Byron, 4th Baron Byron of Rochdale
(1721-1795):
1. Elizabeth. b. 1746. m. (1) 16 Feb 1769 to Peter Delme, of
Titchfield Place, co. Hants., M.P. m. (2) 7 Jan 1794 to Capt. Charles
Garnier, R.N. d. Jun 1813. (Ruvigny, Exeter: 385).
2. Frederick, 5th Earl of Carlisle, &c. b. 28 May & bap. 19 Jun 1748
at St. Anne's, Westminster. m. 22 Mar 1770, Whitehall, St.
Martin's-in-the-Fields to Margaret Caroline, dau. of Granville
Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquess of Stafford. 4 Sep 1825 at Castle Howard
& bu. there. (CP III: 36-37).
3.-5. Allegedly three others. (BP [1970], 479).
Sources:
BP = Burke's _Peerage_ (1970 edition)
CP = _The Complete Peerage_ (2nd ed., 1910-59)
Ruvigny, Exeter = Marquis of Ruvigny, _The Plantagenet Roll of the
Blood Royal: Exeter Volume_ (London, 1907)
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
Frank Young
The <Complete Peerage> lists only three. Charles (1719-1741) and Robert
(1726-1743) were the sons of Frances; and his successor, Frederick
(1748-1825), was the son of Isabella.
Regards, Frank Young
tip...@wam.umd.edu 703-527-7684
Post Office Box 2793, Kensington, Maryland 20891
"Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate... Nunc cognosco ex parte"
History Writer
I have long considered it odd that "Burke's Peerage" does not include
all the children of many 18th century peers. I hope this is corrected
in future editions (it wasn't in the 2000 edition). In order to list
all the children, at least the legitimate ones, once must check
several reference books to start.
"Burke's" (1967 ed.) states the 4th Earl had three sons by Lady
Frances, who died in the life time of their father, and two daughters,
i.e., 1) Arabella, wife of Jonathan Cope, and died in 1746; and 2)
Diana, wife of Thomas Duncombe, of Helmesley, co. York, and died in
1770. Collins's "Peerage of England" (1768) lists the sons as Charles
(d. 1741), Henry (d. young), and Robert (d. 1743). Both Charles and
Robert both used the courtesy title Viscount Howard of Morpeth.
By the Hon. Isabella Byron, "Burke's" only lists the son, Frederick
(1748-1825), and adds that the 4th Earl and Isabella had four
daughters, who are not named. Collins's "The Peerage of England"
states the 4th Earl and Isabella had four daughters, but then lists
five names! The five named are 1) Anne (born 1744), 2) Frances, 3)
Elizabeth, 4) Margaretta, and 5) Juliana. Possibly Maragetta died
young, for Kimber's "Peerage of England" of 1769, gives five living
sisters to the then 5th Earl, i.e., his half-sister Diana (Mrs.
Duncombe), followed by 1) Lady Anne (1744); 2) Lady Fanny (i.e.
Frances) (1745), mar. 1768 to John Radcliffe, Esq., MP; 3) Lady Betty
(i.e. Elizabeth) (1746); 4) Lady Juliana (no birth year given).
"The Plantagenet Roll" Exeter Volume by Ruvigny on Chart XXVII lists
four children of the 4th Earl who left descendants, these are:
--By Lady Frances Spencer:
1) Lady Arabella Howard, d. 1746, wife of Jonathan Cope;
2) Lady Diana Howard, d. 1770, wife of Thomas Duncombe;
--By Hon. Isabella Byron:
3) Frederick, 5th Earl of Carlisle (1748-1825);
4) Lady Elizabeth Howard (1746-1813), married twice, 1st to Peter
Delme, M.P. (1748-1789), and 2ndly to Capt Charles Garner, R.N.,
(d.1796). On page 385, Ruvigny describes Lady Elizabeth as "the beauty
of the Court of Queen Charlotte"). Elizabeth left descendants by two
sons from her first marriage.
(END)
Frank Young
> (Doug Smith) wrote in message news:<4fad4bf0.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > Can anyone help me with a listing of all the children of Henry
> > Howard, 4th Earl of Carlisle by Frances Spencer and Isabella Byron, as
> > well as any know illegimate children?
> 4) Lady Elizabeth Howard (1746-1813), married twice, 1st to Peter
> Delme, M.P. (1748-1789), and 2ndly to Capt Charles Garner, R.N.,
> (d.1796). On page 385, Ruvigny describes Lady Elizabeth as "the beauty
> of the Court of Queen Charlotte"). Elizabeth left descendants by two
> sons from her first marriage.
And she was! One of the most charming works in the National Gallery of Art
(Washington, D. C.) is a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds of the Lady
Elizabeth Delme and her children, the two sons you mention above.
I believe you can see the picture on the web by going to www.nga.gov, then
clicking on "Collections," and then searching for Reynolds.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
hbv...@aol.com (History Writer) wrote:
> al...@mindspring.com (Doug Smith) wrote in message
> news:<4fad4bf0.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > Can anyone help me with a listing of all the children of Henry
> > Howard, 4th Earl of Carlisle by Frances Spencer and Isabella Byron, as
> > well as any know illegimate children?
> >
> > Doug Smith
>
> I have long considered it odd that "Burke's Peerage" does not include
> all the children of many 18th century peers. I hope this is corrected
> in future editions (it wasn't in the 2000 edition). In order to list
> all the children, at least the legitimate ones, once must check
> several reference books to start.
But Burke (and his subsequent editors) have never pretended to do
serious research. To this day their method is to ask family members to
provide and check the latest entry. If the family members will not
cooperate, then they revert to the last known information, possibly a
hundred years old.
Though, one way and another, they have cleaned up the odd rubbish entry
of the 19th century.
If you consider what it took to reseach the Complete Peerage, which
only concentrated on the heirs to titles and not on their siblings, you
must conclude that Burke's volumes would never have been published if
they included all that you now want. Burke with research would have
been prohibitively expensive.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
History Writer
it should try to list easily identifiable children of 17th and 18th
century peers. It took me a few minutes to check other sources. More
people consult Burke's concerning these peers than to learn who is a
4th cousin in a former colony of a 10th Baronet! Burke's would be
more profitable and user friendly if it scoured Collins and Kimble to
update its genealogies. Not all the info comes from the families.
The earlier Burke family members who edited the book did do their own
editing and dismissed false origins. Some proactivism would make the
book continually useful. Best Regards.
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<41aab70...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
History Writer
> On 29 Jun 2003, History Writer wrote:
>
> > 4) Lady Elizabeth Howard (1746-1813), married twice, 1st to Peter
> > Delme, M.P. (1748-1789), and 2ndly to Capt Charles Garner, R.N.,
> > (d.1796). On page 385, Ruvigny describes Lady Elizabeth as "the beauty
> > of the Court of Queen Charlotte"). Elizabeth left descendants by two
> > sons from her first marriage.
>
> And she was! One of the most charming works in the National Gallery of Art
> (Washington, D. C.) is a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds of the Lady
> Elizabeth Delme and her children, the two sons you mention above.
>
> I believe you can see the picture on the web by going to www.nga.gov, then
> clicking on "Collections," and then searching for Reynolds.
>
> Regards, Frank Young
Thank you so much for the info on the portrait. Actually Reynolds
painted her with her two oldest children, a boy and a girl (see
National Gallery description below). The painting is truely stunning.
From "Burke's Landed Gentry" (1937 edition) article on the
Delme-Radcliffe family, I assume the children are John (born 1772) and
Isabella Elizabeth (stated as dying young in 1794). "Burke's" lists a
total of four sons and one daughter for Lady Elizabeth Delme (later
Garnier). Her sister Lady Frances Howard's husband John Radcliffe,
was the maternal uncle of Lady Elizabeth's daugther-in-law (his
eventual heiress), which is why the name became Delme-Radcliffe. Best
Regards.
From
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pinfo?Object=105+0+none
Joshua Reynolds
Lady Elizabeth Delmé and Her Children, 1777-1779
oil on canvas, 239.2 x 147.8 cm (94 1/8 x 58 1/8 in.)
Andrew W. Mellon Collection
1937.1.95
National Gallery of Art Brief Guide
Reynolds sought to elevate British painting, including portraiture, to
the lofty realms of classical expression. After traveling to Rome,
Florence, Bologna, and Venice, Reynolds became the first president of
the Royal Academy, which had been founded in 1768. Through his
teaching at the Academy and the publication of his annual lectures,
the Discourses, he urged the adoption of grand classical values and
the study of Greek and Roman sculpture and Renaissance painting.
In Lady Delmé, Reynolds created an image of idealized, majestic
feminine grace that has many precedents in Renaissance art. The
pyramidal composition of the sitters, Lady Delmé's encircling arms and
quiet manner, and the regal folds of the deep-rose drapery across her
knees are reminiscent of Madonna and Child compositions by Raphael.
The rich, warm colors of the informal landscape and the beautifully
controlled movement of light into the deep reaches of the background
owe much to Titian. Finally, Reynolds' sensitive use of everyday,
intimate details prevents the portrait from becoming remote and
unapproachable. The tenderness with which Lady Delmé holds her son and
daughter, the nuances of personality in the three faces, the realistic
costumes of the children, and the attentive posture of the Skye
terrier give the painting a worldly, familiar context.
(END)
History Writer
> Thank you so much for the info on the portrait. Actually Reynolds
> painted her with her two oldest children, a boy and a girl (see
> National Gallery description below).
The National Gallery description is wrong to describe one of the
children as a girl. Reynolds painted Lady Elizabeth Delme with her
two oldest sons, John Delme (1772-1809) and Emilius Henry
Delme-Radcliffe (1774-1832). In centuries past small boys were often
dressed like girls. The descendants of John and Emilius Henry are
listed in Ruvigny's Exeter Roll (pages 385-86). Ruvigny reprinted a
"photogravure" of Reynolds's portrait just before page 385 of the
Exeter volume, which is a much inferior copy of the original. Ruvigny
states correctly that the portrait is of Lady Elizabeth with her two
sons. Lady Elizabeth's only daughter must have been more much later
to have died young in 1792. Best Regards.
The Bibliographer
History Writer <hbv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Actually Reynolds
>> painted her with her two oldest children, a boy and a girl (see
>> National Gallery description below).
>The National Gallery description is wrong to describe one of the
>children as a girl. Reynolds painted Lady Elizabeth Delme with her
>Ruvigny reprinted a
>"photogravure" of Reynolds's portrait just before page 385 of the
>states correctly that the portrait is of Lady Elizabeth with her two
>sons. Lady Elizabeth's only daughter must have been more much later
>to have died young in 1792.
Yes, that is exactly right, as I said in my original message about the
portrait. If you approach the painting closely, you can see readily that
both of the children are boys -- the description on the National Gallery
website certainly is strange.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
hbv...@aol.com (History Writer) wrote:
> >
> > Thank you so much for the info on the portrait. Actually Reynolds
> > painted her with her two oldest children, a boy and a girl (see
> > National Gallery description below).
>
> The National Gallery description is wrong to describe one of the
> children as a girl. Reynolds painted Lady Elizabeth Delme with her
> two oldest sons, John Delme (1772-1809) and Emilius Henry
> Delme-Radcliffe (1774-1832). In centuries past small boys were often
> dressed like girls.
I even have a family photograph including two of my great-uncles dressed
as girls, probably made around late 1886 or early 1887.
History Writer
>
> Yes, that is exactly right, as I said in my original message about the
> portrait. If you approach the painting closely, you can see readily that
> both of the children are boys -- the description on the National Gallery
> website certainly is strange.
Yes, it is really surprising how many mistakes very reputable museums
make in labelling and describing portraits. Art historians should do
more to learn about the lives those in the portraits they write about
(checking genealogical reference works is a good place to start for
the nobility). And an understanding of titles would help also. The
National Gallery describes Lady Elizabeth Delme, as "Lady Delme". A
common mistake, but still an error that someone who understands
British nobility would never make.
Mislabeling is not that rare. I was very shocked when touring
Buckingham Place in 1998 to see a portrait of Princess Augusta of
Saxe-Gotha, mother of King George III, labelled as "Princess Augusta
of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha". I had hoped that art historians at the Palace
would know better, but apparently not.
Best Regards.
The Bibliographer
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>In message <3943286.03070...@posting.google.com>
> hbv...@aol.com (History Writer) wrote:
>> > Thank you so much for the info on the portrait. Actually Reynolds
>> > painted her with her two oldest children, a boy and a girl (see
>> > National Gallery description below).
>> The National Gallery description is wrong to describe one of the
>> children as a girl.
>as girls, probably made around late 1886 or early 1887.
Yes, I can well believe it. The habit of dressing children in shifts,
which was fairly general for at least three centuries, was not an
affectation for dressing boys like girls. It was for the very practical
purpose of changing nappies -- slide the shift up under the armpits, flop
the child down, change the nappy, stand the child up, and pull down the
shift. Once the boys were trained, they were moved into trousers of some
sort. It seems to me that, especially for recalcitrant males, the prospect
of escaping the shift, and coming to look like older boys, was a great
incentive to successful training. Not perhaps as much of a passage as the
move from short pants to long pants in the later nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, but significant none the less -- the leaving of
babyhood for childhood.
Pat McIntosh-Spinnler
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
>
>> In centuries past small boys were often
>> dressed like girls.
>
> I even have a family photograph including two of my great-uncles dressed
> as girls, probably made around late 1886 or early 1887.
I can do better than that: a photograph of my father in a satin dress, aged
about fourteen months, in the early 1920s. Since he was an only child and
the provenance of the photograph is not in doubt, it can only be him.
In fact as Frank Young's posting comments, the children were not "dressed as
girls" so much as "all dressed the same" for reasons of convenience and
hygiene. Anyone sufficiently into costume history can spot the clues which
indicate that this is a little boy: the headdress is different (a hat with a
feather rather than a linen bonnet, for instance) or there is an absence of
necklace or other jewellery or a definite presence of a sword-belt or
suitable macho toy. One would expect this level of knowledge of the National
Gallery staff, but clearly one doesn't get it.
The National Portrait Gallery's out-station at Montacute House in Somerset,
which contains the early portraits (before 1650? 1700?) has a portrait of a
long-nosed small boy, bearing a large hawk on his wrist. I don't recall just
now whether he is wearing petticoats or breeches but he is labelled "James
I" without even the qualifying phrase "as a child." The inaccuracy is one of
chronology rather than attribution, but it annoys me every time I visit.
Pat McIntosh-Spinnler