The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 01-23-2010, 10:13 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,166
Were there any newspaper articles about the claim in 1849?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-24-2010, 01:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
I have studied this period of history quite extensively at university level (my MA was predominantly in British 19th Century history concentrating on the relationships between the various members of the royal family and the governments of the day) and I have never heard this before.

Any such claim would have merited some sort of story, particularly in the late 1840s with the Chartists and immediately after the Year of Revolutions in 1848. There would also be reports in the court records and the papers, even if it was to declare the claimant insane - which is a far more likely scenario than send him to New Zealand - declare him insane and then lock him up - problem solved.

Even if the story had any shred of truth (which I don't believe for one second) the entire premise that the OP has used on every thread in which he/she has raised this issue always falls down as there was no guarantee that Victoria would have had a child (and in 1820 even have lived -as the high mortality rate amongst children in those years continued until the child was about 4 or 5 and had survived the childhood diseases that killed so many - chicken pox, measles, mumps etc). No child to Victoria and the reason for hiding this presumed son fails as the next four heirs are all male and thus reunites the Crowns of Hanover and Britain.

The entire idea that William would have hidden a legitimate son is just so unbelievable that it really doesn't bare serious consideration.

Any pregnancy of Adelaide had to be witnessed by a minister of the Crown, along with a number of mid-wives etc all of whom would have to have been sworn to secrecy and paid off, handsomely for the rest of their lives. That none of these even let slip to anyone this story, even if only in their diaries/memoirs etc.

Conspiracy theories only work with a very small number of people in the know. There also has to be a guarantee that the conspiracy would actually achieve the goals set. This one had no guarantee of success.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-24-2010, 02:25 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25
Iluvbertie, you can keep trying to counter back with your 'intellect and knowledge' you gained at the university level, but I really could care less.

The hidden son was actually living at Windsor in the frogmore estate under King William's watchful eye, on purpose -- so that if and when he found out who he was, it would be an internal matter and handled accordingly.

I am sure there were a lot of things that happened back in the day, that they kept "hush hush". Are you telling me, that everything that goes on today in any government is reported in the court records and newspapers? If you think that is the case, you need to learn some 'street smarts and stop relying on your book smarts.

This is not a 'conspiracy theory'. This is what happened, and I am close to proving it. I do enjoy your well-crafted responses to each thread I post, though so please keep the entertainment up. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-24-2010, 03:54 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 513
For once I am going agree with Iluvbertie. There are too many aspects of this idea to defy belief. The government could have declared him insane or kill him outright if there was a secret succesion plot in motion., whihc would have been unnecessary and not delivered a single thing to anyone.

I simply can't fathom why William would not want his own son as his heir instead of his niece. There is also now way a serious plot to 'take over the throne' as is stated in the video would have occourred without it becoming public knowledge and I think it would be a bit hard to mistake a stillborn for a live baby.

If royaltyinNZ has proof, why have you waited to now to reveal this to the world? You say that you are close to proving it. Perhaps you should be sure before you start throwing accusations about dynastic coverups.
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-24-2010, 03:55 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post
Iluvbertie, you can keep trying to counter back with your 'intellect and knowledge' you gained at the university level, but I really could care less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post

The hidden son was actually living at Windsor in the frogmore estate under King William's watchful eye, on purpose -- so that if and when he found out who he was, it would be an internal matter and handled accordingly.

I am sure there were a lot of things that happened back in the day, that they kept "hush hush". Are you telling me, that everything that goes on today in any government is reported in the court records and newspapers? If you think that is the case, you need to learn some 'street smarts and stop relying on your book smarts.

This is not a 'conspiracy theory'. This is what happened, and I am close to proving it. I do enjoy your well-crafted responses to each thread I post, though so please keep the entertainment up. :-)

Based on your earlier thread you claim this child was hidden so that Victoria, as a female, would separate the thrones of Britain and Hanover. However, you never address the point I constantly raise about the fact that until Victoria successfully had a child in late 1840 her heirs were male and would re-unite the thrones.

Hiding this supposed son simply won’t work as a mechanism to separate the thrones. In 1820 Victoria was only 1 and still in the dangerous age for infant mortality when many children died. She also would have to face having a child with the high death rate in childbirth and the number of still births. There was no guarantee that Victoria would be able to force the separation of the thrones and even if she did it might only be for a short while – as was acknowledged by the parliament and the press during her pregnancy with the Princess Royal.

The story you posted mentions a person claiming the throne in 1849 and being accused of High Treason. The powers that be, at that time would have had a far simpler mechanism to remove any such person – declare them insane and lock them away.

In 1820 William wasn’t the King. Presumably his sister Princess Augusta was in on this conspiracy, seeing as she was the resident royal at Frogmore House from 1818 until her death in 1840, when it passed to the Duchess of Kent. Was this alleged son still living there along with the mother of the Queen, who lived there from 1840 until 1861, for the 9 years after the death of the alleged son’s Aunt Augusta?

The video you linked to said the couple were ‘forced’ to raise this child as their own? Why? How much were they paid?

You state that this child was born in 1820. The first child of William and Adelaide was still born in 1819 and died shortly afterwards. Adelaide was only in the seventh month of the pregnancy so not unusual for the child not to survive. The second child was miscarried at Calais when Adelaide was about four or five months pregnant and travelling to Britain to give birth on British soil in September 1819. The child that was born in 1820 was a girl – lived for about 3 months so was recorded and seen by a number of people. She died in 1821. Adelaide then also had the still born twin boys in 1822. I am confused as to which child was the alleged son?
So which of the girls is supposed to be the son – the one that died in Hanover or the one that was miscarried in Calais, both of whom were born in 1819 (one after seven months gestation and the other miscarried at five month)? Obviously it can’t be the one born in 1820. She lived for three months and was well known to have been a girl. She was born on the 10th December 1820 and died on the 4th March, 1821. Are you going to suggest that Adelaide had another pregnancy? The dates won’t allow that though. She was pregnant and miscarried in September 1819 having already had a still born child in March of that year and takes a child to term in December of 1820 meaning pregnant again in March of 1820 allowing only six months since the previous miscarriage.

Assuming that you mean the Hanover born child from 1819 are you truly suggesting that this child was smuggled to England with or before the parents and then forced on another family? Seven months gestated babies rarely survived in the early 1800s. They don’t always survive today. I highly doubt that you would be suggesting the miscarried child as that one only gestated for five months.

I seem to find more holes with your story the more I do a simple google search, without even going to the biographies that I have of these people.

Who told this alleged son that he was the son of William and Adelaide? Presumably Adelaide left this son a letter, or did William do so? Anyone else couldn’t be believed anyway – as they would have no corroborating evidence. Unless Adelaide acknowledge that this child came from her body there really is no evidence that this alleged son was hers and I am having great difficulty working out when they had the chance to have a child to hide away in 1820 given that she would have been pregnant for most of the year with Princess Elizabeth who lived for three months and was seen by a number of people.

There are a number of leading officials who record mention of her in their diaries etc. (which I have read in the course of my research). She was christened by the Bishop of London who would have known her sex, or are you contending that she was a boy all along and that the Bishop baptized a boy with a girl’s name on the day of her birth or the next day? Are you contending that the intention was all along to hide this boy by telling the world that the Clarence’s had had a girl, who then died, just so that they could hide their son? That doesn’t make sense. As the child lived for three months as an acknowledged girl, was shown to the relevant minister of the Crown who literally witnessed the birth and had to be shown the child naked to confirm gender I am really having trouble believing that it would be this Princess. The joy at another child for any of the new King’s brothers would have been welcomed, regardless of gender and we know how much George IV despised the Duke of Kent and so would have rejoiced in any child that would deprive Kent’s line the throne.

You claim that you are nearly able to prove that William IV and Adelaide had a son in 1820, which they gave away, so that Victoria could inherit the throne, assuming that she lived that long. What would have happened had she died in say 1822, after they have announced the death of their daughter? The next heir was the Duke of Cumberland and he had a son so the plan falls apart, doesn’t it?


Another thing that seems to change over your posts/threads is when this is supposed to have happened.

In the first post you actually ask whether we believe it is possible that William had a legitimate son that was hidden and everyone here says 'no' but you persist.

Then you say that 'during William's reign' namely from 1830 to 1837 the need/desire to separate the thrones was made so at first I assumed, from that thread (which is at the end of the 'what if' thread that the child had to have been born during the 1830s when William was actually King but now we are told the child was born in 1820 when George IV was King and William was 2nd in line to the throne behind his brother the Duke of York, whose wife died in 1820, leaving him free to remarry if he so desired and father a child, which would have made it meaningless to hide a son by William, Duke of Clarence, if that son could be displaced by a child of the Duke of York. Of course, in hindsight we know that he didn't remarry but they couldn't have known that in 1820.

Every time you post you seem to change the story.

Was William King when this child was born - making it 1830 or later rather than 1820 (or actually 1821 when the child was hidden assuming you actually mean Princess Elizabeth)
Which politician/s decided to send the person to New Zealand and how did the guarantee that he never spoke to anyone about who he said he was? A guard won't do as they can't guard someone 24/7 unless the person is in solitary confinement - and why send them to NZ to do that.
Who wrote the letter or document to this child confirming their parentage - either William or Adelaide as no one else would be able to do so?
What strategies were in place to ensure that Victoria successfully gave birth?
What were they going to do to keep the thrones separate if Victoria had died giving birth to the Princess Royal and taking the child with her (which is, of course what happened to Charlotte - both mother and child died)? Remember that from 1837 until late 1840 Victoria's next four heirs were all male (with the hope of both the Duke of Cumberland and the Duke of Cambridge that she would choose their sons as her future husband).
What steps were made to ensure that she didn't fall in love with the Duke of Cumberland's son and thus unite the thrones again in their child?
Did Princess Augusta know about this alleged nephew living at her home and being raised as someone else's child?
What happened to this child when the Duchess of Kent moved in?
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-24-2010, 05:26 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25
Look, I dont know all the answers at this point ok... It's still a mystery to me why King William wanted a Queen instead of a King. I am starting to think it was George III that had most to do with it. But I will be honest, I don't have everything figured out completely yet.

less than 6 weeks ago, I knew absolutely nothing about British history. I had heard of princess Diana and I knew that Queen Elizabeth was the current Queen, that's it. I don't have a background in history, nor am I anyone special.... But I DO know this -- About 6 weeks ago, my father came home from my grandmothers house with some family geneology. (Before this night, we knew very little about our family's history.)

In our geneaology book, he started reading one of the many handwritten letters contained therein. All of the sudden he started going nuts, and I ran over to him to see what was going on. He was reading about my great great great great grandfather, and his story. He was this hidden son. There are several accounts about him and his story, and how he was banished to New Zealand and sent with two guards. One of them was Lord Halifax (Charles Wood), I don't know the other...

They guarded him and his family and they were never to tell who they were or they would be killed. For nearly 160 years, my ancestors have been afraid to mention this story publicly, for whatever reasons.

But in this day in age, with the way technology is, I can help spread the word about this amazing story, and hopefully fill in the missing pieces along the way. I feel it is my calling, and I know without a shadow of a doubt it is true.

I wish I could share some of the stories that are written in our geneology records, but I will save them for another day. They are completely incredible, and it's high-time that my family bring this story to the world, so we can figure it out.

Just for the record, I am not trying to make any sort of claim to the throne in any way shape or form. I like the Royal family the way it is, and I would never want them to change what they are doing. I have nothing against them, as they are my long lost family that I never knew about until 6 weeks ago.

I am doing my best to work with the community here in these forums, you all have been a great help to me thus far... even you IluvBertie! I thank you for all the great information you have been posting.

So if you have been reading my posts, and have yet to comment, please feel free to do so. I want us all to figure this out together. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-24-2010, 05:41 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post
Look, I dont know all the answers at this point ok... It's still a mystery to me why King William wanted a Queen instead of a King. I am starting to think it was George III that had most to do with it. But I will be honest, I don't have everything figured out completely yet.

In our geneaology book, he started reading one of the many handwritten letters contained therein. All of the sudden he started going nuts, and I ran over to him to see what was going on. He was reading about my great great great great grandfather, and his story. He was this hidden son. There are several accounts about him and his story, and how he was banished to New Zealand and sent with two guards. One of them was Lord Halifax (Charles Wood), I don't know the other...
Perhaps you should have waited until you had found out all or most of the facts of your story first. If you could be a bit more specific with dates, quotes from written records etc you could then cross-check it with the wealth of information Iluvbertie has provided above

I can't see the British Government sending out the first Lord Halifax - who was Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for India as well as an MP during his life - as a guard to hush someone up in the furtherest corner of the Empire. Would anyone believe him if he went around 19th century Auckland or Christchurch etc saying 'I should be King' ?
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-24-2010, 05:52 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25
I thought it was strange too that they would have sent Lord Halifax as well... And it took me awhile to figure out that his real name was Charles Wood. I later found his name, written in one of the letters that I have in my possession. Wished I would have seen it sooner.

I did some research and Lord Halifax was doing some work down in Nelson, New Zealand which is where William's son was sent. He was scouting out crown lands or something.

Here are a couple links that show proof he was there:
NEW ZEALAND SETTLEMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 28 July 1851)

(eighth paragraph down)
Papers Past — Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle — 7 Hereturikōkā 1852 — NELSON TRUST FUNDS.

I don't think that Lord Halifax was down in NZ guarding the whole time. There was another Gentlemen there that stayed in the actual home of my relative throughout his entire life. I don't know who it was though....
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-24-2010, 07:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyNZ
Look, I dont know all the answers at this point ok... It's still a mystery to me why King William wanted a Queen instead of a King. I am starting to think it was George III that had most to do with it. But I will be honest, I don't have everything figured out completely yet.
George III wouldn't have had anything to do with this as by the time Charlotte died he was not functioning properly and his eldest son was Regent as his father was unable to carry out the duties of the monarch. George III probably didn't even know that his eldest granddaugher had died or that he had other grandchildren. His illness was so bad by that stage (he was officially declared 'insane' in 1810).

If you mean George IV I doubt if he really cared much so long as it wasn't the child of his loathed brother, the Duke of Kent. Any child of William's was preferred to one of Edward's. Even the fact that George IV approved the names of William's children gives a clue as to his feelings on the matter. He didn't approve Victoria's parents' preferred names for her - they wanted Georgiana or Elizabeth but George wouldn't let them have those yet allowed Elizabeth for William's daughter in 1820.

Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post
I thought it was strange too that they would have sent Lord Halifax as well... And it took me awhile to figure out that his real name was Charles Wood. I later found his name, written in one of the letters that I have in my possession. Wished I would have seen it sooner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post

I did some research and Lord Halifax was doing some work down in Nelson, New Zealand which is where William's son was sent. He was scouting out crown lands or something.

Here are a couple links that show proof he was there:
NEW ZEALAND SETTLEMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 28 July 1851)

(eighth paragraph down)
Papers Past — Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle — 7 Hereturikōkā 1852 — NELSON TRUST FUNDS.

I don't think that Lord Halifax was down in NZ guarding the whole time. There was another Gentlemen there that stayed in the actual home of my relative throughout his entire life. I don't know who it was though....

Neither of these documents prove that Lord Halifax was in New Zealand in 1851 or at any other time - and remember the length of time it would have taken it would have been noted if he was absent from his official duties for that length of time (we are talking at least 6 months).

The first is a report from the House of Commons about a debate to do with New Zealand and did not take place in New Zealand but in London, with Mr Gladstone speaking along with others. The Chancellor mentioned would be Lord Halifax and this is proof that he was in London on 28th July, 1851, as he should be as Lord Chancellor. There is no way he would have been absent from Britain for more than a couple of weeks while holding that position – the monarch and PM wouldn’t have permitted it and it would have been noted in a major way.

The second document is a series of letter written in Britain about The Nelson Trust Fund in New Zealand. These letters were mostly written by James Stuart Tytler with him including an indication of where he was such as 19, Castle Street, Edinburgh, November 14, 1851. He does say the following: At Mr. Lefevre's request, I put these in writing, and next day waited upon him with the letter, to the enclosed copy of which I beg to refer you. It is unnecessary to enter into these arguments here ; suffice it to say, that I went over the whole ground most carefully with him, both with regard to the new position, and the old objections against the New Zealand Company's charging the settlement with the expenses of surveys, house and local establishment expenditure, &c. I succeeded in convincing him that the position now taken up , is unsound, but as it was of importance that it should be at once disposed of, I accompanied him to the Chancellor of Exchequer, with whom the whole matter now rests. I had the honour of shortly stating to Sir Charles Wood my views with regard to the point which had been raised by the Government ; this of necessity had to be done in a much more brief manner than with Mr. Lefevre, nor could I make reference to authorities, and I regret to inform you that although Sir Charles Wood was wholly unable to answer many of ray arguments, he expressed himself unsatisfied with their weight, and stated that no payment could be made until the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was taken upon the subject ; he also said that he would again see Mr. Lefevre on the subject, and arrange with him what was to be done. I subsequently had a long conversation with Mr. Lsfevre as to the whole matter, and arranged with him that be was to endeavour to obtain the preparation of the case for the Crown law officers committed to him. The case will then be submitted to me before it is laid before them. I beg to refer to Dr. Monro for fuller details of my interviews both with the Chancellor of Exchequer and Mr. Lefevre, than I am at liberty to give in a letter like the present. I trust that, notwithstanding the many un* expected difficulties and delays that have sprung up to thwart the final settlement of this matter, I may be able at all events in my next letter to inform you of a payment to account of the Funds having been made. I am, &c, James Stuart Tytlkb. Edinburgh, February 9, 1852. This is the only mention of Charles Wood/Lord Halifax and like all of the correspondence in this source idenfies the writer and where he was at the time - in this case he was in Edinburgh. Mr Leferve writes from Brighton and another writer mentioned is a Mr Hawes. All of these writers are clearly in Britain when doing this writing about New Zealand and not from New Zealand.


There is nothing in either of these sources to even suggest that Lord Halifax ever went to New Zealand. That he was interested in New Zealand affairs, including the matter of the Nelson settlers and their Trust Fund (which is what these documents refer to), is reasonable given his position as he had to approve the spending of Britain’s money but there is nothing here to say he was in New Zealand in 1851 but rather the opposite. In July he was clearly in London in the House of Commons (the Hansard report makes that clear - that he was in the House of Commons on that day and that he spoke as did William Gladstone) and was in Britain in February the following year when the writer of these letters met with him to discuss the matter of the Nelson Trust Funds. The writer of most of these letters was in Britain during this correspondence and Mr Leferve was also in Britain. It isn't clear where Mr Hawes was but he would have to have been reasonably local due to the length of time letters took to go from one side of the world to the other e.g. it could take six months to get a reply to a letter - three months to go from Britain to New Zealand and three months back so Mr Hawes is also located in Britain. If Lord Halifax did go to New Zealand between these two dates it would have been a visit similar in time to Prince William’s recent visit as there just isn’t the time and it wouldn't be hard to do a check of Hansard to see if he spoke in the House of Commons again that year.

If this is your evidence that Lord Halifax was guarding this alleged son it doesn’t hold up as all of this material relates to matters concerning New Zealand being dealt with in Britain during 1851 and 1852 and proves that Lord Halifax was in Britain at this time. Further reading the Hansard records shows that he was there up to the date before the Prorogation in 1851 meaning he had a short time to leave the country, travel to New Zealand look around and return before meeting the author in February and being back in the House for the resumption.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 01-24-2010, 08:17 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25
If New Zealand was selling Crown Lands and they had to be acknowledge by Lord Halifax, is there a law that states to 'acknowledge' you have to be there in person? What does acknowledge mean in that context?
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 01-24-2010, 08:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
As Chancellor of the Exchequer he had to approve the deal but he didn't have to ever go to NZ to do so. He could simply do it in the privacy of his office at No. 11 Downing St or at the Colonial Office elsewhere in Westminster. In effect what he was doing was saying - I know what is happening and it is happening with the consent of Her Majesty's government.

He simply had to sign the papers and to do that he had to be briefed about what was happening, probably by the Colonial Secretary, who also wouldn't need to ever visit any of the colonies, but would receive correspondence from people on the ground - some official and some unofficial e.g. the Governor of the Colony as well as some actual settlers who might give conflicting information.

In addition information would be sent by settlers to their agents in Britain, those who had arranged for the settlers to go, if they were wealthy enough to be able to afford an agent, and then this agent would inform the Colonial Secretary who would inform the more senior members of the government as needed - be it the Chancellor or the Prime Minister or even possibly the Queen herself. These people simply didn't go to the colonies to see for themselves what was happening. They didn't have the time to spend a year or so away from London - they would lose their position and possibly their chance for advancement and by the time they got home whatever they had found out would be out of date information anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 01-25-2010, 12:05 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25
I am sure there is a good chance that Lord Halifax did end up going to Nelson at some point in his life and I am sure there is proof somewhere.

Do you know anything of Lord Frederick Montague?



Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 01-25-2010, 12:18 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 513
There was a Lord Frederick Montague who died in 1827 and served as Postmaster-General for about a year according to wikipedia - Lord Frederick Montagu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 01-25-2010, 12:56 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25
Yeah thats the only record I found of him as well... Strange that it was noted in the newspaper that he was on the ship in 1851. He was dead! Could they have possibly mixed him up with Lord Halifax? Or could there possibly be another Lord Frederick Montagu with no information about him anywhere? Doesn't it seem strange?
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 01-25-2010, 05:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
Do you have a link to the newspaper article that says that this Montagu was on the ship (or more importantly the shipping records that list the passengers - all ships leaving Britain had very detailed shipping records with lists of passengers, particularly if they were of the titled classes). What was the name of the ship, when did it leave Britain etc. All that could give a clue as to who this person was.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 01-25-2010, 06:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post
I am sure there is a good chance that Lord Halifax did end up going to Nelson at some point in his life and I am sure there is proof somewhere.Do you know anything of Lord Frederick Montague?
A check of the Hansard records indicate that he was in London in all years from 1827 - 1879 as he either spoke in the House of Commons or the House of Lords fairly regularly between January and August except for 1866 but he did vote in the Lords that year. That was the year that he was raised to the peerage which could account for him not giving a speech but he did vote (as the names of how people voted is also recorded).

He also didn't give a speech in 1829 or 1832 but as these years pre-date British settlement I didn't check as there was no British colony in New Zealand for him to visit.

Given the time it would take to travel to and from New Zealand and the dates recorded for him being in the Parliament it is doubtful that he ever visited New Zealand as he had, at most about 6 months to get out and back - so no time to be guarding someone.

Hansard is the official records of the Parliament and would not be recording someone as speaking if they didn't or voting if they didn't - no need to as many politicians wouldn't have been present so having a name recorded means that that person was definitely present as there is no shame in not having the name recorded.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 01-28-2010, 08:07 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25
Here is a passenger list for the "Castle Eden".
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nzbound/castleeden.htm
You can see Lord Frederick Montague is listed in the chief cabin.

So this is now driving me crazy... Who is this Lord Frederick Montague? And why is there no information on him past 1827? Even if he did live to 1850, he would have been a sack of bones and not able-bodied to "guard" anyone. This is very interesting!
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 01-29-2010, 02:04 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
A bit of searching reveals an answer.

The Montagu's are the family of the Dukes of Manchester.
The Lord Frederick Montagu who was the politician died in 1827. He was the younger brother of the then Duke of Manchester (the 5th), who actually succeeded his younger brother as Postmaster General.
This Duke of Manchester had a grandson also called Lord Frederick Montagu who died in 1854 without issue. It is this second Lord Frederick who is likely to be the passenger on the ship. He was only 26 when he died having been born in 1828.

George Montagu, 6th Duke of Manchester - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia refers to the second Lord Frederick
Lord Frederick Montagu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia refers to the first Lord Frederick.

Given the date of death of the first and the date of birth of the second I wouldn't be surprised if the second was named after the first but that is a guess.

The line of descent appears to be:

4th Duke of Manchester - Lord Frederick Montagu
4th Duke of Manchester - 5th Duke of Manchester - 6th Duke of Manchester - Lord Frederick Montagu

The other major family named Montagu is the family of the Earl of Sandwich but I can't find any Frederick's in their family tree.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 01-29-2010, 07:41 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25
Wow thanks so much for taking your time to search all that for me. I appreciate it.

So why would this man have the title 'Lord'? Do you think he was any signifigance? I wonder if my ancestors somehow mistook Lord Frederick for Lord Halifax?

I did some reading on his father and it sounded like he was a stern man with a military background -- I wonder if that carried over to his son, and his son was acting as a guard?
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 01-29-2010, 03:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
As the younger son of a Duke both of the Lord Frederick's were entitled to be 'Lord'.
The father of the younger Lord Frederick entered Parliament aged 27 so not much time for a military career there. Born in 1799 and entered Parliament in 1828 the year young Frederick was born and the year after the older Lord Frederick died.

The grandfather of the younger Lord Frederick was Govenor of Jamaica and had a military career but how much influence he had on the younger son of his own son isn't known.
The younger Lord Frederick would have been a very junior officer in 1851 when travelling to New Zealand as he was only 23 at the time. He also died only 3 years later with no record of where he died being able to be located by me at the moment.

Was he very important - only as important as the younger son of any Duke was at the time. Could be a little less as he never had issue and died so young. He comes up as a footnote to his father's biography with no information other then when he was born and when he died.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adel, british, caumont, francois, germany, grabowski, henri, inheritance, jenison-walworth, la force, lineage, marquis de castelneau, mecklenburg-strelitz, multiple, raugraf von heidelberg, royal, royal poland lineage revolution 1900, scottish, secret, the bourg family titles?


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best hat best outfit camillas outfits catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary evening dresses crown princess mary eveningwear crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events current events thread danish royal events danish royal family death duchess of cambridge fashion poll felipe vi grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe and queen letizia king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander member introduction national day norwegian royals opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary eveningwear princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia maternity wear princess sofia pregnancy style princess victoria princess victoria fashion queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen mathilde queen mathildes style queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal royal fashion state visit sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge eveningwear the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats visit to india and bhutan 2016


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises