The British Nobility thread 1: Ending 2022

[NGalitzine]

The Longleat clan have a well earned reputation for "eccentricities", but I don't think his sentence is very unusual for someone who has admitted his problems, is attempting to get clean and who is employed full time. He was not accused of trafficing which would have resulted in a harsher sentence.

 

[Furienna]

Lord Christopher was born in 1934 and got married in 1968. Alexander Thynne is 50 years old, meaning he was born in 1962, when Lord Christopher was 18 years old (and before his marriage to Lady Antonia).

Lord Christopher would have been 28 years old in 1962, not 18 years old. But then again, 18-year-olds can become fathers too.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

The Longleat clan have a well earned reputation for "eccentricities", but I don't think his sentence is very unusual for someone who has admitted his problems, is attempting to get clean and who is employed full time. He was not accused of trafficing which would have resulted in a harsher sentence.

With that much stuff at his place, he's a lucky man to have gotten off the charge. How would someone who is "attempting" to get/stay clean be able to live around his devil? He's either using non-stop or dealing. Were the plants confiscated?

 

[Artemisia]

Lord Christopher would have been 28 years old in 1962, not 18 years old. But then again, 18-year-olds can become fathers too.

That was a typo, thanks for noticing it!

 

[madeleineleigh]

I was hoping to start a conversation in this thread about the pros and cons of moving from male primogeniture to absolute primogeniture within the English nobility. I can see the rationale for keeping the bulk of the estate intact along with the title by passing it to one child, otherwise the family history and estates will peter away to nothing by being constantly split, generation after generation between many children.

Many monarchies have now moved to absolute primogeniture, and it is likely (or certain?) that whatever the sex of Kate & William's first child, that child will one day be monarch (barring unfortunate circumstances). But it seems easier to change the primogeniture form for the throne, than for all the separate titles. I think this may require a separate act of parliament for each title, no? Not sure on the legal specifics here.

I think everyone rational and non-misogynistic now accepts that women are as equally capable as men, and just as able to be intelligent. I myself am I feminist and can imagine being quite offended if I was the position of a being a first born and a daughter of the Duke of X, and being essentially told you are unworthy to inherit the estate simply because you are a woman and your younger brother will be hitting the jackpot just because he is male.

One notable issue could be the importance of the family name and the fact that tradition dictates that women change their name when they marry. For example, the Dukes of Devonshire's family name is Cavendish and it is very much part of their identity. This issue could circumvented in absolute primogeniture by including some sort of caveat in the amended title that the bearer must carry the surname of X or just having a new family tradition that the title bearer should carry surname X.

There is quite a large article which discusses the background of primogeniture over at wiki.

What are everyone's thoughts on the concept and the actual mechanics of changing it? I would love hear everyone's varying thoughts, even if they don't necessarily agree.

 

[fearghas]

I hate to see titles die out due to lack of a male heir. It is highly unlikely that any future heriditary titles will be created outside of the royal family. So rather than see the titles die I would prefer that it could be inherited by a daughter. Certainly there is no reason to believe that a woman is less able or worthy than a man.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that the most outrageous example of the inequity of the situation is Princess Beatice. She is able to inherit the throne but not her father's title of York simply because she is the wrong gender.

 

[Furienna]

Yeah, that is a bit weird.

 

[NGalitzine]

What benefit to society is there for hereditary peerages to continue if the male line becomes extinct. I cannot see any imperative to re-create all of their patents in order to continue with the peerage.

 

[Al_bina]

Marquess of Northampton battling his latest spouse over £25m fortune amid secret lover claims | Mail Online

 

[MAfan]

Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, passed away on 30 June 2012 at Jerilderie, New South Wales, Australia. He was 69 year old.

He was born on 22 July 1942, the son of Captain Walter Strickland Lord and his wife Barbara Abney-Hastings, the 13th Countess of Loudoun.
He was married since 1969 to Noeline Margaret McCormick, by whom he had two sons and two daughters.
In 2002, at the death of his mother, he succeeded her as 14th Earl of Loudoun.
In 2004 Channel 4 documentary "Britain’s Real Monarch" arose the claim that King Edward IV of England was conceived illegitimately and therefore he and his descendants weren't the rightful English sovereigns; instead, the Earl of Lousoun - as the direct descendant of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence - should be the rightful King. This claim, however, is disputed among historians, and neither the 14th Earl of Loudoun took it seriously.


He is survived by his wife and their children; his eldest son, Simon Michael Abney-Hastings (Lord Mauchline), succeeds him as 15th Earl of Loudoun.

Rightful king dies - Local News - News - General - The Daily Advertiser
Peerage News: 14th Earl of Loudoun (1942-2012)

 

[MAfan]

Another obituary of the late Earl of Loudon, from the Telegraph:
The Earl of Loudoun - Telegraph

 

[MAfan]

Rosamond, Countess of Cardigan, née Winkley, passed away on 4 July 2012 aged 63. She has been suffering of pancreatic cancer for 6 months.

She was born in 1948, and married in 1980 to David Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan (son and heir of the 8th Marquess of Ailesbur). They became parents of two children; their marriage ended in divorce in 2009.
She is survived by her two children, Thomas (Viscount Savernake) and Lady Catherine (best known as Bo Bruce).

Peerage News: Rosamond Countess of Cardigan dies aged 63
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/new...dies__aged_63/

 

[Iluvbertie]

What benefit to society is there for hereditary peerages to continue if the male line becomes extinct. I cannot see any imperative to re-create all of their patents in order to continue with the peerage.

It is more a matter of equality. A man has children but because they are the wrong gender can't pass on his title - it is blatantly sex discrimination and should be fixed by either abolishing all peerage titles or allowing the eldest child regardless of gender to inherit - simply fairness.

 

[Artemisia]

The less drastic solution would be something akin to male primogeniture - eldest son still inherits, but if there are no sons, the eldest daughter can inherit the title.

Virtually all original Letters Patent of English, Scottish and British peerage titles did not contain a reminder for female inheritance; however, in certain (very rare) circumstances, they have been amended (or new Letters Patent were issued) to include a clause allowing inheritance by or through females in absence of male heirs. Would it not be possible to issue a sort of mass Letters Patent with similar reminders? After approval from both Houses of the Parliament, of course.

 

[NGalitzine]

Why not just let them expire as the lines become extinct? It is not as if the hereditary peers still sit in the House of Lords and exercise political power. Why ask parliament to interfere in something that is of no benefit to society?

 

[Artemisia]

But most of the titles do not expire; if a Peer doesn't have a son, the title is (usually) inherited by closest male relative by laws of primogeniture.
The change would simply allow the daughters of the Peer to inherit the title, because right now they are excluded simply because they were born the "wrong" gender.

 

[NGalitzine]

Seems like a perfectly good arrangement with no reason to interfere in these peoples private lives since it has no political relevance and no real benefit to society.
If the government wants to interfere in something to benefit women why not ask them to pass legislation forcing the Church of England (which is still the established religion of England) to allow women Bishops? What about forcing the Roman Catholic Church in the UK to allow women to become priests/bishops etc? Surely such legislation would have a far greater positive impact on the status of women in powerful public positions as opposed to legislating on ancient titles held by people who no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords.

 

[Osipi]

What about forcing the Roman Catholic Church in the UK to allow women to become priests/bishops etc?

This could never be accomplished in the UK as the RC Church in the UK is still very much under the jurisdiction of the Vatican and all changes would be made there and be universal for the RC Church worldwide.

 

[Furienna]

Exactly. Such a big change could never be made without permission from the Vatican.

 

[Pranter]

Women priestesses/bishops are not going to be allowed by the vatican, the late JPII already issued an encyclical on that one. All attempts to do this by heterdox Catholics have been met with excommunication fairly swiftly.


LaRae

 

[NGalitzine]

This could never be accomplished in the UK as the RC Church in the UK is still very much under the jurisdiction of the Vatican and all changes would be made there and be universal for the RC Church worldwide.

I know that. I was being a bit sarcastic. Interfering in hereditary peerages that no longer have anything to do with the governance of the UK makes about as much sense as forcing the RCC in the UK to adapt policies against sexual discrimination in force in the UK although the latter would definitely send a stronger statement on gender equality.

 

[Osipi]

I know that. I was being a bit sarcastic. Interfering in hereditary peerages that no longer have anything to do with the governance of the UK makes about as much sense as forcing the RCC in the UK to adapt policies against sexual discrimination in force in the UK although the latter would definitely send a stronger statement on gender equality.

Now I see your point clearly. Peerage titles from what I've read here and in other various sources seem to point to the fact that such peerage titles are meaningful to the descendants who can trace their lineage back to the xxth century and gives a history of ancestry and perhaps includes a"pile". (For some reason I never liked this referance of estates or manors even though by now some actually are scattered remnants of where an estate manor once stood.) Once upon a time peerages did mean a lot more than they do now but then again, back then women were locked up in chastity belts too.

 

[Artemisia]

Seems like a perfectly good arrangement with no reason to interfere in these peoples private lives since it has no political relevance and no real benefit to society.
If the government wants to interfere in something to benefit women why not ask them to pass legislation forcing the Church of England (which is still the established religion of England) to allow women Bishops? What about forcing the Roman Catholic Church in the UK to allow women to become priests/bishops etc? Surely such legislation would have a far greater positive impact on the status of women in powerful public positions as opposed to legislating on ancient titles held by people who no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords.

By the same logic, why did they bother to give women right to vote? After all, for thousands of years society survived without it.

 

[Artemisia]

Difficult times for the Brudenell-Bruce family...

Mourners fill church for funeral of Rosamond, Countess of Cardigan

St Mary's Church at Great Bedwyn was packed with people having to stand at the back and sides for the funeral yesterday of Rosamond, Countess of Cardigan. The service was held at the church where she was married in 1980 to the Earl of Cardigan and where she attended communion, priest Colin Fox told the congregation.

Earl of Cardigan faces trial on Wiltshire theft charges

The Earl of Cardigan will face a Crown court trial after pleading not guilty to criminal damage and theft. David Brudenell-Bruce, 59, appeared at Swindon Magistrates' Court accused of damaging pheasant feeders and stealing a battery and power unit - all of which belong to Peter Tilley. The case was adjourned until 6 September.

 

[Emeralds and Opals]

Emma Rutland of Belvoir Castle: A thoroughly modern duchess - Telegraph

 

[NGalitzine]

By the same logic, why did they bother to give women right to vote? After all, for thousands of years society survived without it.

Hardly the same logic at all. Womens sufferage impacted half the population as well as the governance of the nation. Hereditary peers are a miniscule portion of the population and no longer take part in the governance of the nation by hereditary right. They like everyone else must seek election to Parliament or receive a life peerage.

 

[MAfan]

The Duke and Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon welcomed on 9 July 2012 their first child, a son named Douglas Charles.
The baby, as eldest son and heir of the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, will carry the courtesy title of Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale.

Peerage News: Birth of a son and heir to the Duke & Duchess of Hamilton

 

[Lumutqueen]

A boy named Douglas who is the Marquess of Douglas? Anyone else find that highly amusing? :3

 

[MAfan]

I've noticed only now that I have not mentioned the surname of the baby: Douglas-Hamilton.
So his complete name and style is Douglas Charles Douglas-Hamilton, Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale.
Now it is even more amusing