The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1621  
Old 07-03-2022, 10:45 AM
iceflower's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: , Germany
Posts: 65,776
The Marchioness of Bath attended day 7 of Wimbledon 2022, including the Polo Ralph Lauren & British Vogue event at Wimbledon today, July 3:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **
__________________

__________________
**** Welcome aboard! ****
Reply With Quote
  #1622  
Old 07-04-2022, 09:07 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Can you (general you) explain why you claim it is "greedy", "odd", and "more interested in money than in healing [the] rift" for the Lambton sisters to fight for a fair share of their father's inheritance, while you consider it acceptable for Ned Lambton to claim "daddy"'s entire inheritance for himself?
Those sister’s received a house from their father so it’s not as if they were left on the streets
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1623  
Old 07-06-2022, 01:17 PM
eya eya is offline
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 24,454
Marchioness of Bath walked the runway during the Celia KrithariotiFashion Show in Paris on 5 july


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FW_2f_tW...jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FW_2n-dX...jpg&name=large
__________________
#ΜΕΝΟΥΜΕ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΣ! #StaySafe! and the 2022!!
Reply With Quote
  #1624  
Old 07-07-2022, 06:11 PM
eya eya is offline
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 24,454
Marchioness of Bath, attends the British Vogue x Sabina Bilenko dinner at The Twenty Two today 7 July in London

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos...49?s=2048x2048

https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2...ents=775836852
__________________
#ΜΕΝΟΥΜΕ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΣ! #StaySafe! and the 2022!!
Reply With Quote
  #1625  
Old 07-07-2022, 10:01 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
Is there any news apart from the Marchioness of Bath?��
Reply With Quote
  #1626  
Old 07-11-2022, 01:30 AM
eya eya is offline
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 24,454
Very rare


Marchioness of Bath attends the Dolce & Gabbana’s Alta Moda event in Sicily.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXVq1CwW...jpg&name=large
__________________
#ΜΕΝΟΥΜΕ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΣ! #StaySafe! and the 2022!!
Reply With Quote
  #1627  
Old 07-11-2022, 02:17 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
For those of you who have heard of the 2nd Duke of Westminster, Bend’or Bendor, here are some informative and good reads by two different people who have researched on him : http://bear.buckingham.ac.uk/550/1/1302467%20Hugh%20Richard%20Arthur%20Grosvenor.pdf. and

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/98671/Thesis%202022%20May%20final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Hope I’m not disrespecting forum rules and that you enjoy the research done by these people
Reply With Quote
  #1628  
Old 07-14-2022, 03:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Can you (general you) explain why you claim it is "greedy", "odd", and "more interested in money than in healing [the] rift" for the Lambton sisters to fight for a fair share of their father's inheritance, while you consider it acceptable for Ned Lambton to claim "daddy"'s entire inheritance for himself?
Those sister’s received a house from their father so it’s not as if they were left on the streets
It is not as if Ned Lambton would be left on the streets if he conceded his sisters a fair share, or even a less than fair share, of the inheritance, so I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question about why posters have called the sisters "greedy", "odd", and "more interested in money than in healing [the] rift" for fighting for a share, while there is no criticism of the brother for claiming the entire inheritance for himself.


Though it is not central to the story, in regards to the house from their father, I presume that refers to the following sentence in the Telegraph's story: "He and Lucinda live in Buckinghamshire, in a house left to her by her father."

My understanding of the story is that the house was gifted to Lucinda before her father's passing, as both the Telegraph and Independent stories are otherwise clear on the point that the daughters were left nothing in the late Lord Lambton's will:

Quote:
When Lord Lambton died in 2006, at the age of 84, he left the whole of his £12 million estate to Ned. [...] his five daughters received nothing. [...] While they all accept, as confirmed by legal documents, that “none is mentioned in Lord Lambton’s will”, [...]

[...] Ned served a High Court writ on his sisters, preventing them from claiming any of his inheritance. [...]
Quote:
"Gender discrimination – they are two words I would never dream of using but there is no other way to describe it. My brother was left whatever it was, £200m, and we were left not even a pencil. [...]
Reply With Quote
  #1629  
Old 07-14-2022, 03:56 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It is not as if Ned Lambton would be left on the streets if he conceded his sisters a fair share, or even a less than fair share, of the inheritance, so I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question about why posters have called the sisters "greedy", "odd", and "more interested in money than in healing [the] rift" for fighting for a share, while there is no criticism of the brother for claiming the entire inheritance for himself.


Though it is not central to the story, in regards to the house from their father, I presume that refers to the following sentence in the Telegraph's story: "He and Lucinda live in Buckinghamshire, in a house left to her by her father."

My understanding of the story is that the house was gifted to Lucinda before her father's passing, as both the Telegraph and Independent stories are otherwise clear on the point that the daughters were left nothing in the late Lord Lambton's will:
I didn’t say they were greedy though and getting a house from your father is better than getting nothing at all. Plus if they weren’t disabled or mentally incapacitated, I don’t see why they shouldn’t have gotten jobs and worked. If he signed a contract making a promise to provide for them, then he should stick to it, but if he did not I don’t see why should give them anything. More importantly, do we know if there are liquid assets to give. No one is criticizing Ned because he didn’t change the will to favor himself, the inheritance was given to him by his father. I do wonder what the legal stipulations in that will
Reply With Quote
  #1630  
Old 07-14-2022, 04:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
I didn’t say they were greedy though
I know, but as my question as to why the daughters and not the son were called greedy (etc.) was quoted in your post, I assume it was meant as an answer to that question. Have I misunderstood?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
and getting a house from your father is better than getting nothing at all.
The relevant comparison, though, is to their brother Ned Lambton, who received an undivided £12 million inheritance from their father, which is very far from receiving nothing at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
Plus if they weren’t disabled or mentally incapacitated, I don’t see why they shouldn’t have gotten jobs and worked.
The same could be said about Ned Lambton. Indeed, it would be even more difficult in his case to justify his demand to keep the full £12 million on the basis of need, compared to his sisters' smaller claims of £1 million.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
If he signed a contract making a promise to provide for them, then he should stick to it,
It seems that even what limited promises their father made, he failed to execute, according to his son-in-law:
“In my hearing, the father promised my wife the second house on the Italian estate; a very lovely house,” recalls Worsthorne. “But then he got dementia and in the end there was nothing left.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
but if he did not I don’t see why should give them anything.
It is not so much a question of whether the late Earl should have provided for his adult children in his will (on which reasonable people may differ, whether or not they condone sexism), but of whether the late Earl and current Earl were right to insist on everything being provided to the man and nothing to the women.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
More importantly, do we know if there are liquid assets to give.
Apparently yes, given the previous agreement between the siblings:
Before the writ was issued, the sisters thought they had reached an agreement with their brother. Indeed, Lucinda had planned what to do with her share. “She undertook to pay for one of our grandchildren to go to boarding school and put up the money, thinking it was in the bag,” explains Worsthorne. “It was so embarrassing when the [settlement] didn’t go through and she had to tell the school she hadn’t raised the money after all.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
No one is criticizing Ned because he didn’t change the will to favor himself,
Neither have his sisters, but I expect what you mean is that Ned's behavior is treated as more acceptable because it is conforming to their late father's written will. Perhaps you are right about the beliefs behind the comments, though I note that one of the quoted posters was much less intense in his comments about a male nobleman who contested his late grandfather's will:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
No one stopped her from having children, and only his wish to keep the inheritance stopped them from marrying. At the end of the day it was all about free will and personal decisions they made individually or as a couple.
Reply With Quote
  #1631  
Old 07-14-2022, 06:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I know, but as my question as to why the daughters and not the son were called greedy (etc.) was quoted in your post, I assume it was meant as an answer to that question. Have I misunderstood?




The relevant comparison, though, is to their brother Ned Lambton, who received an undivided £12 million inheritance from their father, which is very far from receiving nothing at all.




The same could be said about Ned Lambton. Indeed, it would be even more difficult in his case to justify his demand to keep the full £12 million on the basis of need, compared to his sisters' smaller claims of £1 million.




It seems that even what limited promises their father made, he failed to execute, according to his son-in-law:
“In my hearing, the father promised my wife the second house on the Italian estate; a very lovely house,” recalls Worsthorne. “But then he got dementia and in the end there was nothing left.”



It is not so much a question of whether the late Earl should have provided for his adult children in his will (on which reasonable people may differ, whether or not they condone sexism), but of whether the late Earl and current Earl were right to insist on everything being provided to the man and nothing to the women.




Apparently yes, given the previous agreement between the siblings:
Before the writ was issued, the sisters thought they had reached an agreement with their brother. Indeed, Lucinda had planned what to do with her share. “She undertook to pay for one of our grandchildren to go to boarding school and put up the money, thinking it was in the bag,” explains Worsthorne. “It was so embarrassing when the [settlement] didn’t go through and she had to tell the school she hadn’t raised the money after all.”



Neither have his sisters, but I expect what you mean is that Ned's behavior is treated as more acceptable because it is conforming to their late father's written will. Perhaps you are right about the beliefs behind the comments, though I note that one of the quoted posters was much less intense in his comments about a male nobleman who contested his late grandfather's will:
The point was that they received something useful as a house that many are struggling to get and considering that she’s a woman from a family of some considerable means, in the old days if the family was wealthy the woman would receive a dowry but if the family wasn’t so rich she wouldn’t receive much or anything at all. Ned would need the money because he is running the family estate and most aristocrats aren’t rich like in previous centuries and Ned is the only son and head of the family that’s just how it goes. Maybe they should come to some favorable settlement.
Reply With Quote
  #1632  
Old 07-15-2022, 11:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
The point was that they received something useful as a house that many are struggling to get
However, Lucinda Lambton and her sisters were not being labeled as "greedy" and "odd" in comparison to those struggling to afford a house. They were being labeled as "greedy" and "odd" in comparison to a wealthy, privileged man campaigning to hold onto every penny of a £12 million inheritance for which he has never needed to work, much less struggle.

Some may think it greedy for anyone to file a claim for £1 million while others are struggling to purchase a home. But Ned Lambton and his supporters clearly believe it is greedy only when a woman is the claimant, since Ned is, in their eyes, not greedy for claiming £12 million while others are struggling to afford a house.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
and considering that she’s a woman from a family of some considerable means, in the old days if the family was wealthy the woman would receive a dowry but if the family wasn’t so rich she wouldn’t receive much or anything at all.
Indeed, and as women from such families have testified (see the Liza Campbell quote from earlier), the exclusion or near-inclusion of women from inheritances in English families remains more pervasive than many outsiders are aware of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
Ned would need the money because he is running the family estate and most aristocrats aren’t rich like in previous centuries and Ned is the only son and head of the family that’s just how it goes.
The family indeed cannot help the fact that the headship of the family cannot descend to women (that could only be altered by Parliament), and Lucinda and her sisters evidently are accepting of having the bulk of the inheritance settled on their brother.

There doesn't seem to be any basis for concern that £9 million (the amount which would be left to Ned if he accepted the settlement requested by his sisters) would be somehow insufficient to run Ned's estates. Indeed, Lucinda's statement that the preservation of buildings and countryside is very important to her, and Ned's former willingness to settle some money on at least one of his sisters, would point to the estates being financially secure regardless of which party won the court case.
Reply With Quote
  #1633  
Old 07-15-2022, 01:10 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
However, Lucinda Lambton and her sisters were not being labeled as "greedy" and "odd" in comparison to those struggling to afford a house. They were being labeled as "greedy" and "odd" in comparison to a wealthy, privileged man campaigning to hold onto every penny of a £12 million inheritance for which he has never needed to work, much less struggle.

Some may think it greedy for anyone to file a claim for £1 million while others are struggling to purchase a home. But Ned Lambton and his supporters clearly believe it is greedy only when a woman is the claimant, since Ned is, in their eyes, not greedy for claiming £12 million while others are struggling to afford a house.




Indeed, and as women from such families have testified (see the Liza Campbell quote from earlier), the exclusion or near-inclusion of women from inheritances in English families remains more pervasive than many outsiders are aware of.




The family indeed cannot help the fact that the headship of the family cannot descend to women (that could only be altered by Parliament), and Lucinda and her sisters evidently are accepting of having the bulk of the inheritance settled on their brother.

There doesn't seem to be any basis for concern that £9 million (the amount which would be left to Ned if he accepted the settlement requested by his sisters) would be somehow insufficient to run Ned's estates. Indeed, Lucinda's statement that the preservation of buildings and countryside is very important to her, and Ned's former willingness to settle some money on at least one of his sisters, would point to the estates being financially secure regardless of which party won the court case.
My point is that they were lucky to receive something especially when even junior brothers aren’t given anything if they aren’t wealthy. Estates are expensive to run and maintain and 12 million is quite poor for aristocratic standards of wealth but that’s neither here or there. My issue isn’t because she’s a woman so she’s greedy. I feel like there should be court proceedings and this to be settled properly.
Reply With Quote
  #1634  
Old 07-17-2022, 07:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
My point is that they were lucky to receive something especially when even junior brothers aren’t given anything if they aren’t wealthy. [...] My issue isn’t because she’s a woman so she’s greedy. I feel like there should be court proceedings and this to be settled properly.
I see, you were discussing the frequency of wills like the late Earl's in the British aristocracy. (Indeed, that is a point which many daughters of peers, including Lady Lucinda, have been making.)

For clarification, my original question and followup posts have been focused on the vilification of the Lambton women as "greedy" by previous posters (not you) while the Lambton men escaped criticism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1 View Post
Estates are expensive to run and maintain and 12 million is quite poor for aristocratic standards of wealth but that’s neither here or there.
A 2019 London South Bank University study put the average British peer's personal fortune at £16 million, so although below average, the Lambton earls are not penurious even by the standards of the peerage.

Again, I do believe the information on record militates against the possibility of the sisters' share being needed for this particular family's estates, especially as Ned Lambton himself did not seem to set out that argument. But as you said, a court would be in the best position to investigate the details of the specific case and settle the dispute.
Reply With Quote
  #1635  
Old 07-17-2022, 08:39 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
I understand that you were questioning why posters were insinuating them as greedy and I know that you weren't saying that I called the sisters greedy. I was simply stating my own separate view point. Estates are expensive to run because fixing the roof goes in the millions of pounds, not to mention requiring a certain number of staff as well as paying for them. If their father had been serious about giving them money then trusts should have been made around the time they got married, then these court issues wouldn't be happening. but its irrelevant at this point. Hopefully something good can come out of this.
Reply With Quote
  #1636  
Old 07-19-2022, 12:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Anyway, but I wonder, if in the "matriarchalic" Royal Houses, like Norway, Sweden etc. the male "heirs", which are the second born there, are discriminated against as well... or if they inherit the same amount of money as their big sisters.

They wont get the castles and all, that is sure.
There is no sexist discrimination against men for the benefit of women in the Norwegian or Swedish monarchies; as with all countries, they remain patriarchal cultures, even if they score at or near the apex in global rankings of gender parity.

A degree of birth order discrimination is inevitable in modern European monarchies where systems using elective monarchy or partitions between the sovereign's sons have been superseded by primogeniture succession to the throne. As you allude to, royal palaces and the like are considered part of the state heritage. It is undesirable to sell and break up royal estates in order to provide for younger sons/daughters.

However, in Norway and Sweden, even female "spares" such as Princess Märtha Louise and Princess Madeleine are included in the royal family's private fortune. Prince Carl Philip, the only current adult male spare in Sweden or Norway, appears for the moment to be richer in property than even the Crown Princess.


Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Btw The girls here in this thread, which are talked about, they got a good name, good connections and a good education - this is more than the most get.
It appears the late Earl of Durham did not attempt to grant his daughters that much, in contrast to the first-class education he provided for his son.
"Ned, the youngest in the family, has led a colourful life, too. To celebrate his birth – a son after five daughters – an ox was roasted and a bonfire lit on Penshaw Hill in County Durham, formerly part of the family estate. While his parents (his mother Belinda, from whom Lord Lambton never divorced, died in 2003) thought education wasted on his sisters, he went to Eton."

Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
And nobody talks, like always, about the second, third... follow me... born sons, if there is a first-born male heir. Here in Germany, as soon as they are 18, they are forced by friendly pressure of their loving families to lay down any claims of inheritence they might have had - written down and court battle proof!... - Because the survival of the name and the undivided estate is of outmost importance.
Interesting!


Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Please correct me, if I am wrong, but you said "written out" of the last will. Now it sounds like they were not included in the first place - that is a difference.
"Written out" was used in Mirabel's question, but I understand she was quoting the Telegraph's phrasing, posted by Lenora. From reading the story, the facts of this specific case seem somewhat complex. The Lambton daughters were apparently left nothing in their father's last will and testament, but Lady Lucinda, at least, believed she she had an informal understanding with her father and brother to receive a small portion of the inheritance. There also seem to be questions about the late Lord Durham's dementia and whether certain parts of the estate are governed by English or Italian law.
Reply With Quote
  #1637  
Old 07-19-2022, 01:15 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
There is no sexist discrimination against men for the benefit of women in the Norwegian or Swedish monarchies; as with all countries, they remain patriarchal cultures, even if they score at or near the apex in global rankings of gender parity.

A degree of birth order discrimination is inevitable in modern European monarchies where systems using elective monarchy or partitions between the sovereign's sons have been superseded by primogeniture succession to the throne. As you allude to, royal palaces and the like are considered part of the state heritage. It is undesirable to sell and break up royal estates in order to provide for younger sons/daughters.

However, in Norway and Sweden, even female "spares" such as Princess Märtha Louise and Princess Madeleine are included in the royal family's private fortune. Prince Carl Philip, the only current adult male spare in Sweden or Norway, appears for the moment to be richer in property than even the Crown Princess.




It appears the late Earl of Durham did not attempt to grant his daughters that much, in contrast to the first-class education he provided for his son.
"Ned, the youngest in the family, has led a colourful life, too. To celebrate his birth – a son after five daughters – an ox was roasted and a bonfire lit on Penshaw Hill in County Durham, formerly part of the family estate. While his parents (his mother Belinda, from whom Lord Lambton never divorced, died in 2003) thought education wasted on his sisters, he went to Eton."



Interesting!




"Written out" was used in Mirabel's question, but I understand she was quoting the Telegraph's phrasing, posted by Lenora. From reading the story, the facts of this specific case seem somewhat complex. The Lambton daughters were apparently left nothing in their father's last will and testament, but Lady Lucinda, at least, believed she she had an informal understanding with her father and brother to receive a small portion of the inheritance. There also seem to be questions about the late Lord Durham's dementia and whether certain parts of the estate are governed by English or Italian law.
The sisters are or were trying to apply Italian law because Ned is living in Italy on a property bought by his father many years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #1638  
Old Today, 09:33 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 312
Has anyone hear read Black Diamonds?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
And also donated large sums for the armed forces rehabilitation centre at Stanford Hall (originally bought & gifted by his father).

That said the Westminsters have not paid inheritance tax (death duties as was) since 1953.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7998246.html
The family actually paid the tax, Pimlico was partly sold to pay for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
They're also the richest members of the nobility. Indeed the only reason they shot up the ranks so quickly to become dukes was because of their colossal rentier wealth. They were not distinguished by any other achievements.
The 1st Duke was a major philanthropist and patron of a number building’s in Chester and to some charities and hospitals, the 2nd Duke although more well-known for being a playboy and for his marriages was also involved in some philanthropy: he donated land around Milbank for housing working class people, his staff were well-paid and he advocated and built flats for working class people. Bendor also received a DSO for a military campaign in Egypt and saved some British officers. The current Duke’s late father was involved in the military and advocated for veterans. Yes granting of the Dukedom wasn’t because of political reasons or for the family’s lack of political finesse like the Cecil family or Cavendish family, but some of the title holders had their own achievements.
Reply With Quote
  #1639  
Old Today, 12:29 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 10,955
After thirty five years of marriage the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk have finalised their divorce.

Edward William Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England [born 2 Dec, 1956], son of the 17th Duke, KG [1915-2002], and the former Ann Mary Teresa Constable-Maxwell [1927-2013], married 27 June, 1987, Georgina Susan Gore [born 30 Jan, 1962], scion of the Earls Temple of Stowe, daughter of John Temple Gore [1931-2018], and his wife the former Serena Margaret Mounsey [died 2015], by whom he had issue, three sons, Henry, Earl of Arundel and Surrey [born 3 Dec, 1987], Lord Thomas [born 14 March, 1992], and Lord Philip [born 14 July, 1996], and two daughters, Lady Rachel [born 10 June, 1989], and Lady Isobelle [born 7 Feb, 1994].

The Duke of Norfolk is now in a relationship with Francesca Vaughan Herbert [nee Bevan, born 1963], former wife of the Hon Harry Herbert [born 2 March, 1959], second son of the 7th Earl of Carnarvon [1924-2001], and daughter of Jonathan Stuart Vaughan Bevan, and his wife the former Victoria Leycester.

Source: Peerage News.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aristocracy, armstrong-jones, british nobility, countess, countess of snowdon, douglas, earl of snowdon, marie, phillip, snowdon, von hofmannsthal


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
British Royal Family Picture Thread james British Royals 71 06-06-2022 06:11 PM
The Royal Family of Spain Picture Thread, Part 1 Anna_R Royal Family of Spain 122 03-29-2022 01:37 PM
British Royal Family Current Events 2: November 2005-June 2006 Elspeth Current Events Archive 187 06-11-2006 01:10 AM
Infanta Leonor, News and Pictures Part 1: November 2005 - February 2006 Elsa M. Current Events Archive 192 02-18-2006 06:11 AM




Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday abdullah ii albert prince consort all tags austria braganza british royal family cadwallader camilla castile charles congo danish royal family de la cerda denmark dubai expo duchess of kent duke of cambridge guzman hamdan bin ahmed history identifying india ingrid-alexandra ivrea japanese imperial family japan history jordan royal family king edward iii king henry iii king philippe king willem-alexander louis mountbatten maria ii monarchist movements monarchists mountbatten nara period need help noble families norway crown princely couple official visit orleans-braganza pedro ii politics portugal prince andrew prince charles prince of wales prince of wales in jordan queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria samurai state visit tokugawa uae wine glass


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:30 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises
×