Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
bwilson

Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av bwilson » 08 des 2006 22:55:32

I am one of the many descendents of Gov. Thomas Dudley. I recently was
looking at the 1928 Burke's peerage, especially at the succession to
various baronies, and became puzzled on the succession of the Dudley
barony.

Of course there are baronies of writ, and those created by patent.
Perhaps they have different rules of succession? I am asking for help
on this matter of succession.

From browsing Burke, it seems that, while a barony can be succeeded to
by another family through marriage with the only daughter of the

previous family's last baron, in most cases the male lines of descent
from the original baron must be exhausted before another family can
succeed to the barony.

An alternative rule of succession, like that of the British monarchy,
would be succession with preference to the senior male son, his male
offspring, or second sons and so on, but to daughters failing any
surviving male descendents of the last lord.

John Sutton of Dudley was created 1st lord Dudley 1439/40 by writ. The
barony descended through the senior male line to the 5th baron, Edward.
Then Frances, granddaughter of Edward 5th lord Dudley succeeded to the
barony in 1643 on the 5th baron's death. She married Sir Humble Ward,
of which marriage their eldest son, Edward Ward, became 7th Lord Dudley
in 1697 upon the death of Frances, baroness Dudley.

Did Frances Dudley succeed as Baroness Dudley in 1643 because there
were no male Dudleys remaining descended from the 1st baron or, as with
the monarchy, because she was the senior heir of the 5th baron?

To trace back up the tree, to see where there might have been a male
Dudley remaining who could succeed:

Frances Dudley was the only child of Ferdinando Dudley (d.v.p.), the
only son of Edward, the 5th lord Dudley. The 4th lord Dudley had two
sons, of which the second, according to Burke, "had issue, all deceased
without issue in 1660 except Anne, who married Edward Gibson, of York,
and left issue." So no male Dudleys there. The 3rd lord Dudley, John,
had 4 sons, Edward, the 4th lord mentioned above; Sir Henry, who
married a daughter of Sir Christopher Ashton; George, a soldier in the
garrison in Calais; and Thomas, d. 1574, leaving an only child
Elizabeth.

If Sir Henry Dudley or George Dudley (sons of the 3rd baron) had male
heirs, would they have inherited the barony of Dudley in 1643 in
preference to Frances Dudley, granddaughter of Edward, 5th lord Dudley?

If, as has been suggested, Gov. Thomas Dudley was the (only?) grandson
of Sir Henry Dudley, second son of John, 3rd baron, he would have been
the 1st cousin once removed of the 5th baron, and probably the senior
most closely related male Dudley to that baron. On the death of the
5th baron without male issue, the 1st succession senario would have him
succeeding to the barony in preference Frances Dudley.

Additionally, given the 1st succession senario, it would seem that any
male Dudley in descent of the 1st lord Dudley would have succeeded in
preference to Frances Dudley. This would mean that no descendents in
the male line of the 1st Baron existed in 1643.

That seems unlikely but possible, given the many sons of some of the
early Dudley barons.

I look forward to hearing responses from those knowledgeable in
succession to titles of nobility.

Brad Wilson
San Francisco, Calif.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 08 des 2006 23:38:25

In message of 8 Dec, "bwilson" <bradfordlwilson@yahoo.com> wrote:

I am one of the many descendents of Gov. Thomas Dudley. I recently was
looking at the 1928 Burke's peerage, especially at the succession to
various baronies, and became puzzled on the succession of the Dudley
barony.

Of course there are baronies of writ, and those created by patent.
Perhaps they have different rules of succession?

You have hit the nail on the head. Baronies by writ succeed by the old
feudal rules. Baronies by letters patent (or other explicit creation)
succeed by the terms of those letters.

I am asking for help on this matter of succession.

From browsing Burke, it seems that, while a barony can be succeeded to
by another family through marriage with the only daughter of the
previous family's last baron, in most cases the male lines of descent
from the original baron must be exhausted before another family can
succeed to the barony.

Not quite true for baronies by writ: you just have to see who the feudal
heirs of the deceased are. If they were female then there are two
possibilities:

1. There is only one female in which case she inherited the barony and
her husband would be summoned to parliament by right of his wife. If he
was not so summoned, he could ask to be and probably would be.

2. If there are two or more females, then the barony goes into abeyance
between them. The sovereign can at a later date decide which of the
female co-heirs, of their heirs, male or female, is to inherit. In
recent centuries this was done by the Committee of privileges of the
House of Lords. It is up to the representatives of the co-heirs to take
up the case themselves: if they do nothing, nothing will happen.

An alternative rule of succession, like that of the British monarchy,
would be succession with preference to the senior male son, his male
offspring, or second sons and so on, but to daughters failing any
surviving male descendents of the last lord.

The sovereignty does indeed to to the eldest son (or other heir male)
and if there are no sons but there are daughters, to the eldest
daughter. This is quite different to the rules of abeyance for
peerages.

John Sutton of Dudley was created 1st lord Dudley 1439/40 by writ. The
barony descended through the senior male line to the 5th baron, Edward.
Then Frances, granddaughter of Edward 5th lord Dudley succeeded to the
barony in 1643 on the 5th baron's death. She married Sir Humble Ward,
of which marriage their eldest son, Edward Ward, became 7th Lord
Dudley in 1697 upon the death of Frances, baroness Dudley.

Sounds like Frances was a sole daughter and thus a sole heir. So there
was no abeyance.

Did Frances Dudley succeed as Baroness Dudley in 1643 because there
were no male Dudleys remaining descended from the 1st baron or, as with
the monarchy, because she was the senior heir of the 5th baron?

She succeeded as she was the sole heir to her father.

To trace back up the tree, to see where there might have been a male
Dudley remaining who could succeed:

Frances Dudley was the only child of Ferdinando Dudley (d.v.p.), the
only son of Edward, the 5th lord Dudley. The 4th lord Dudley had two
sons, of which the second, according to Burke, "had issue, all deceased
without issue in 1660 except Anne, who married Edward Gibson, of York,
and left issue." So no male Dudleys there. The 3rd lord Dudley, John,
had 4 sons, Edward, the 4th lord mentioned above; Sir Henry, who
married a daughter of Sir Christopher Ashton; George, a soldier in the
garrison in Calais; and Thomas, d. 1574, leaving an only child
Elizabeth.

If Sir Henry Dudley or George Dudley (sons of the 3rd baron) had male
heirs, would they have inherited the barony of Dudley in 1643 in
preference to Frances Dudley, granddaughter of Edward, 5th lord Dudley?

No. That is not how it works.

If, as has been suggested, Gov. Thomas Dudley was the (only?) grandson
of Sir Henry Dudley, second son of John, 3rd baron, he would have been
the 1st cousin once removed of the 5th baron, and probably the senior
most closely related male Dudley to that baron. On the death of the
5th baron without male issue, the 1st succession senario would have him
succeeding to the barony in preference Frances Dudley.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Additionally, given the 1st succession senario, it would seem that any
male Dudley in descent of the 1st lord Dudley would have succeeded in
preference to Frances Dudley. This would mean that no descendents in
the male line of the 1st Baron existed in 1643.

That seems unlikely but possible, given the many sons of some of the
early Dudley barons.

I look forward to hearing responses from those knowledgeable in
succession to titles of nobility.

Don't we all.

You may find it interesting to get hold of Complete Peerage and read
about some of the peerages that went into abeyance and how the
succession was resolved.

Further Heraldry Today still has a few transcripts left of peerage
claims before the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords. Some
of them are very well presented cases and judgements. They are at:

http://www.heraldrytoday.co.uk

Have a look in the Peerage and Royalty section, there are quite a few
books that would interest you.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Peter Stewart

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 des 2006 23:56:01

"bwilson" <bradfordlwilson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165614932.486126.111530@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
I am one of the many descendents of Gov. Thomas Dudley. I recently was
looking at the 1928 Burke's peerage, especially at the succession to
various baronies, and became puzzled on the succession of the Dudley
barony.

Of course there are baronies of writ, and those created by patent.
Perhaps they have different rules of succession? I am asking for help
on this matter of succession.

Peerages created by letters patent follow the rules of succession set out in
these. The vast majority direct the succession to heirs male of the created
peer - however, a few exceptions occur, usually as a favour becasue the
individual had no son & no prospect of having one at the time of being
honoured, as I suppose happened with the earldom of Mountbatten of Burma
that passed to the elder daughter. Sometimes a later amendment changes the
"default" order of succession by male primogeniture for special reasons, as
with the dukedom of Edinburgh, for instance, that will be inherited by the
third son.

The usual fate of older peerages of this kind is to pass to a more-or-less
distant relative who is descended in the male line from the original holder,
as with the earldom of Lincoln when the dukedom of Newcastle became extinct
becasue there were no males left in the family descended from the individual
for whom the higher honour had been created. This happened too with the
earldom of Portland when the dukedom became extinct. But when the last duke
of Leeds died, from memory, all his titles became extinct, although he had a
daughter, since all had been created by conventional letters patent.

Often a barony will continue in such a case, passing to a daughter, because
it was created by writ and did not have explicit rules limiting succession
to males. This happened, for instance, with the barony of Wentworth that
passed to Lady Anne Blunt, Byron's granddaughter, when her father's earldom
of Lovelace became extinct. The same thing happened with the barony of
Dudley, except that this was not obscured behind a higher and later title in
the generation before it passed to an heiress.

Peter Stewart

James Dempster

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av James Dempster » 09 des 2006 10:30:17

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:02:40 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


Peerages created by letters patent follow the rules of succession set out in
these. The vast majority direct the succession to heirs male of the created
peer - however, a few exceptions occur, usually as a favour becasue the
individual had no son & no prospect of having one at the time of being
honoured, as I suppose happened with the earldom of Mountbatten of Burma
that passed to the elder daughter. Sometimes a later amendment changes the
"default" order of succession by male primogeniture for special reasons, as
with the dukedom of Edinburgh, for instance, that will be inherited by the
third son.

This is a bit OT for the time period of this group, but the succession
to the Dukedom of Edinburgh has not been so altered. The succession to
an existing peerage can only be altered by means of an act of
parliament and such an act has not been passed.

The Queen could also have (but has not) created a second Dukedom of
Edinburgh for her husband specifically naming her third son as the
heir. This was done with the Dukedom of Fife when it became clear that
Princess Louise was unlikely to have any further children. Thus when
the 1st Duke died in 1912 his Dukedom of 1889 (and indeed all the
earlier Fife peerages) became extinct, but the Dukedom of 1900 and its
subsidiary title were inherited by his eldest daughter.

All that has been done concerning the Dukedom of Edinburgh is that a
press release has been put out stating the Queen's desire that the
Earl of Wessex be created Duke of Edinburgh at some time in the
future. No monarch can bind the actions of their successor so it might
not happen not only because a future monarch might not want to do it
but because the Dukedom of Edinburgh might be inherited by someone
else (a long shot but theoretically possible)

This has been much discussed on alt.talk.royalty and two examples the
means by which it could happen are.

1. Prince William of Wales marries and has an only daughter
The Queen, the Prince of Wales and Prince William all die before the
current Duke of Edinburgh.

2. Prince William of Wales marries and has an only daughter
The Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and Prince William all die
before the Queen.

In both these situations the daughter of Prince William would become
Queen and Prince Harry would become Duke of Edinburgh according to the
wording of the Letters Patent.

The Dukedom of Edinburgh will continue in a line of the royal family
other than that of the Earl of Wessex until the more senior male lines
are extinct or a person who has inherited the title becomes King or a
King inherits the Edinburgh title, at which time the Edinburgh title
merges with the crown.

James

James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

Peter Stewart

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 des 2006 11:39:02

"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fvkn29esasfr2sso3cqrq5hg72mem6on9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:02:40 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


Peerages created by letters patent follow the rules of succession set out
in
these. The vast majority direct the succession to heirs male of the
created
peer - however, a few exceptions occur, usually as a favour becasue the
individual had no son & no prospect of having one at the time of being
honoured, as I suppose happened with the earldom of Mountbatten of Burma
that passed to the elder daughter. Sometimes a later amendment changes the
"default" order of succession by male primogeniture for special reasons,
as
with the dukedom of Edinburgh, for instance, that will be inherited by the
third son.

This is a bit OT for the time period of this group, but the succession
to the Dukedom of Edinburgh has not been so altered. The succession to
an existing peerage can only be altered by means of an act of
parliament and such an act has not been passed.

The Queen could also have (but has not) created a second Dukedom of
Edinburgh for her husband specifically naming her third son as the
heir. This was done with the Dukedom of Fife when it became clear that
Princess Louise was unlikely to have any further children. Thus when
the 1st Duke died in 1912 his Dukedom of 1889 (and indeed all the
earlier Fife peerages) became extinct, but the Dukedom of 1900 and its
subsidiary title were inherited by his eldest daughter.

All that has been done concerning the Dukedom of Edinburgh is that a
press release has been put out stating the Queen's desire that the
Earl of Wessex be created Duke of Edinburgh at some time in the
future. No monarch can bind the actions of their successor so it might
not happen not only because a future monarch might not want to do it
but because the Dukedom of Edinburgh might be inherited by someone
else (a long shot but theoretically possible)

This has been much discussed on alt.talk.royalty and two examples the
means by which it could happen are.

1. Prince William of Wales marries and has an only daughter
The Queen, the Prince of Wales and Prince William all die before the
current Duke of Edinburgh.

2. Prince William of Wales marries and has an only daughter
The Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and Prince William all die
before the Queen.

In both these situations the daughter of Prince William would become
Queen and Prince Harry would become Duke of Edinburgh according to the
wording of the Letters Patent.

Thanks for the correction, but why Prince Harry? How could he become heir to
the dukedom of Edinburgh if not Prince Andrew, duke of York, before him,
assuming its remainder is to second sons? Would not he have to die first
also, without a son, in both scenarios?

In any case, the fantasy that either the prince of Wales or his successors
would not honour the wishes of Queen Elizabeth II in this regard is just an
indulgence of peerage geeks, of no interest or purport in the world of
actuality, where she will cast a shadow of grateful compliance over many
royal generations to come.

Prince Edward, earl of Wessex, will definitely become duke of Edinburgh if
he lives long enough, by another creation if necessary - and I for one hope
that needs to be a very long time indeed.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 des 2006 12:13:02

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:_tweh.5194$HU.369@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fvkn29esasfr2sso3cqrq5hg72mem6on9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:02:40 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


Peerages created by letters patent follow the rules of succession set out
in
these. The vast majority direct the succession to heirs male of the
created
peer - however, a few exceptions occur, usually as a favour becasue the
individual had no son & no prospect of having one at the time of being
honoured, as I suppose happened with the earldom of Mountbatten of Burma
that passed to the elder daughter. Sometimes a later amendment changes
the
"default" order of succession by male primogeniture for special reasons,
as
with the dukedom of Edinburgh, for instance, that will be inherited by
the
third son.

This is a bit OT for the time period of this group, but the succession
to the Dukedom of Edinburgh has not been so altered. The succession to
an existing peerage can only be altered by means of an act of
parliament and such an act has not been passed.

Can you elucidate this?

I am not sure if the theory proposed implies that a succeeding sovereign is
incapable of altering the dispositions of a predecessor as fount of honour,
i.e. in this case that Queen Elizabeth II cannot amend the letters patent of
King George VI.

If this is so, then surely King George V could not have revoked a peerage
created by Queen Victoria, and the dukedom of Albany must still exist unless
an act of parliament has rescinded it, confirming jingoistic efforts of the
palace resulting from the Great War.

But this is not the view of the present court, as far as I know, that
considers George V's order valid. Why then would the present queen not
simply alter her father's letters patent for the dukedom of Edinburgh in the
same way rather than enjoining herself or her heirs & successors to create a
new dukedom for Prince Edward, or his heirs, in future?

Peter Stewart

James Dempster

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av James Dempster » 09 des 2006 14:07:54

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 10:46:18 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


This has been much discussed on alt.talk.royalty and two examples the
means by which it could happen are.

1. Prince William of Wales marries and has an only daughter
The Queen, the Prince of Wales and Prince William all die before the
current Duke of Edinburgh.

2. Prince William of Wales marries and has an only daughter
The Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and Prince William all die
before the Queen.

In both these situations the daughter of Prince William would become
Queen and Prince Harry would become Duke of Edinburgh according to the
wording of the Letters Patent.

Thanks for the correction, but why Prince Harry? How could he become heir to
the dukedom of Edinburgh if not Prince Andrew, duke of York, before him,
assuming its remainder is to second sons? Would not he have to die first
also, without a son, in both scenarios?

The remainder is the normal one to the heirs male of the body of the
current Duke, so that a grandson who is the son of the eldest son
inherits before any younger sons, thus the the line of succession to
the Edinburgh title is currently

1 Prince Charles
2 Prince William
3 Prince Harry
4 Prince Andrew
5 Prince Edward

James


James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

James Dempster

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av James Dempster » 09 des 2006 14:15:28

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:21:30 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:_tweh.5194$HU.369@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fvkn29esasfr2sso3cqrq5hg72mem6on9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:02:40 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

This is a bit OT for the time period of this group, but the succession
to the Dukedom of Edinburgh has not been so altered. The succession to
an existing peerage can only be altered by means of an act of
parliament and such an act has not been passed.

Can you elucidate this?

I am not sure if the theory proposed implies that a succeeding sovereign is
incapable of altering the dispositions of a predecessor as fount of honour,
i.e. in this case that Queen Elizabeth II cannot amend the letters patent of
King George VI.

If this is so, then surely King George V could not have revoked a peerage
created by Queen Victoria, and the dukedom of Albany must still exist unless
an act of parliament has rescinded it, confirming jingoistic efforts of the
palace resulting from the Great War.

The Dukedom of Albany *was* revoked by an act of partiament - the

Titles Deprivation Act (1917)
7 & 8 GEO. 5. CHAPTER 47.

The text can be found at
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain ... on1917.htm


James

James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

Peter Stewart

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 des 2006 16:47:02

"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s9dln2p0l80ivl2q2o7da0t1m546u8ofls@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:21:30 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:_tweh.5194$HU.369@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fvkn29esasfr2sso3cqrq5hg72mem6on9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:02:40 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

This is a bit OT for the time period of this group, but the succession
to the Dukedom of Edinburgh has not been so altered. The succession to
an existing peerage can only be altered by means of an act of
parliament and such an act has not been passed.

Can you elucidate this?

I am not sure if the theory proposed implies that a succeeding sovereign
is
incapable of altering the dispositions of a predecessor as fount of
honour,
i.e. in this case that Queen Elizabeth II cannot amend the letters patent
of
King George VI.

If this is so, then surely King George V could not have revoked a peerage
created by Queen Victoria, and the dukedom of Albany must still exist
unless
an act of parliament has rescinded it, confirming jingoistic efforts of
the
palace resulting from the Great War.

The Dukedom of Albany *was* revoked by an act of partiament - the
Titles Deprivation Act (1917)
7 & 8 GEO. 5. CHAPTER 47.

So parliament has taken over from the sovereign as the fount (or at least
re-fount) of honour as from 1917? Another check to the elective British
monarchy that still presents itself as hereditary. Prince Charles had better
look to his rights as the next monarch, in case the Beckhams are still more
popular than the Windsors when his mother dies....

I thought the prince of Hanover still considers himself to be duke of
Cumberland - was that title not included in the parliamentary revocation of
1917?

Peter Stewart

James Dempster

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av James Dempster » 09 des 2006 19:48:33

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:54:50 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s9dln2p0l80ivl2q2o7da0t1m546u8ofls@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:21:30 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:_tweh.5194$HU.369@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

If this is so, then surely King George V could not have revoked a peerage
created by Queen Victoria, and the dukedom of Albany must still exist
unless
an act of parliament has rescinded it, confirming jingoistic efforts of
the
palace resulting from the Great War.

The Dukedom of Albany *was* revoked by an act of partiament - the
Titles Deprivation Act (1917)
7 & 8 GEO. 5. CHAPTER 47.

So parliament has taken over from the sovereign as the fount (or at least
re-fount) of honour as from 1917? Another check to the elective British
monarchy that still presents itself as hereditary. Prince Charles had better
look to his rights as the next monarch, in case the Beckhams are still more
popular than the Windsors when his mother dies....

The concept that a peerage once granted cannot be revoked by the

simple will of the monarch is much much older than 1917. It dates at
least back to the case of Rex vs Purbeck in 1678 if not earlier.

I thought the prince of Hanover still considers himself to be duke of
Cumberland - was that title not included in the parliamentary revocation of
1917?

Had you read the text of the very short act on the heraldica website
to which I provided a link you would have seen that the 1917 act
provided for

"a committee of His Privy Council, of which two members at least
shall be members of the Judicial Committee , to enquire into and
report the names of any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a
peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms
against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His
Majesty's enemies."

"Such report shall be laid upon the table of both Houses of Parliament
for the space of forty days, and, if by that time there has not been
passed in either House a motion disapproving of the report, it shall
be taken as final and presented to His Majesty.

Where the name of any peer or prince is included in the report, then
from and after the date of the presentation of the report to His
Majesty—

1. The name of such person, if he be a peer, shall be struck out of
the Peerage Roll, and all rights of such peer to receive a writ of
summons and to sit in the House of Lords or to take part in the
election of representative peers shall cease and determine :
2. All privileges and all rights to any dignity or title, whether
in respect of a peerage or under any Royal Warrant or Letters Patent,
shall cease and determine."

then further on the heraldica site

"ORDER IN COUNCIL ACCEPTING REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
UNDER THE TITLES DEPRIVATION ACT, 1917 (7 & 8 GEO. 5 c. 47) AS TO
FORFEITURE OF BRITISH DIGNITIES AND TITLES OF CERTAIN ENEMY PEERS AND
PRINCES.

1919 No. 475

"Their Lordships do humbly report to Your Majesty that the persons
hereinafter named have adhered to Your Majesty's enemies during the
present war:
His Royal Highness Leopold Charles, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence
and Baron Arklow.
His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale,
Earl of Armagh.
His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus (Duke of Brunswick), Prince of
Great Britain and Ireland.
Henry, Viscount Taaffe of Corren and Baron of Ballymote."

The Dukes of Albany and Cumberland you have mentioned in your posts.
The Duke of Brunswick is either the same man as the Duke of Cumberland
or his second son. The two cannot be differentiated one from the other
by means of only their first two forenames.

Viscount Taafe was of an originally Irish family that had been
resident in Austria since the late 17th century.

James
James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

Peter Stewart

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 des 2006 23:04:02

Can you please clarify whether the titles (not including the dukedom of
Brunswick, that wasn't British) were formally revoked by the Titles
Deprivation Act (1917) or by the Order in Council of George V accepting
this?

It seems peculiar that the people would be named with their titles under a
reference to the Titles Deprivation Act if this had carried the force of
annulling these titles already. If it did not, and instead the Order in
Council had this effect, then it would appear that these peerages were
indeed revoked by the will of the monarch.

Peter Stewart


"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jvtln21a2a44q76mi8omvfaccq0g8lftlk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:54:50 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s9dln2p0l80ivl2q2o7da0t1m546u8ofls@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:21:30 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:_tweh.5194$HU.369@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

If this is so, then surely King George V could not have revoked a
peerage
created by Queen Victoria, and the dukedom of Albany must still exist
unless
an act of parliament has rescinded it, confirming jingoistic efforts of
the
palace resulting from the Great War.

The Dukedom of Albany *was* revoked by an act of partiament - the
Titles Deprivation Act (1917)
7 & 8 GEO. 5. CHAPTER 47.

So parliament has taken over from the sovereign as the fount (or at least
re-fount) of honour as from 1917? Another check to the elective British
monarchy that still presents itself as hereditary. Prince Charles had
better
look to his rights as the next monarch, in case the Beckhams are still
more
popular than the Windsors when his mother dies....

The concept that a peerage once granted cannot be revoked by the
simple will of the monarch is much much older than 1917. It dates at
least back to the case of Rex vs Purbeck in 1678 if not earlier.

I thought the prince of Hanover still considers himself to be duke of
Cumberland - was that title not included in the parliamentary revocation
of
1917?

Had you read the text of the very short act on the heraldica website
to which I provided a link you would have seen that the 1917 act
provided for

"a committee of His Privy Council, of which two members at least
shall be members of the Judicial Committee , to enquire into and
report the names of any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a
peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms
against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His
Majesty's enemies."

"Such report shall be laid upon the table of both Houses of Parliament
for the space of forty days, and, if by that time there has not been
passed in either House a motion disapproving of the report, it shall
be taken as final and presented to His Majesty.

Where the name of any peer or prince is included in the report, then
from and after the date of the presentation of the report to His
Majesty-

1. The name of such person, if he be a peer, shall be struck out of
the Peerage Roll, and all rights of such peer to receive a writ of
summons and to sit in the House of Lords or to take part in the
election of representative peers shall cease and determine :
2. All privileges and all rights to any dignity or title, whether
in respect of a peerage or under any Royal Warrant or Letters Patent,
shall cease and determine."

then further on the heraldica site

"ORDER IN COUNCIL ACCEPTING REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
UNDER THE TITLES DEPRIVATION ACT, 1917 (7 & 8 GEO. 5 c. 47) AS TO
FORFEITURE OF BRITISH DIGNITIES AND TITLES OF CERTAIN ENEMY PEERS AND
PRINCES.

1919 No. 475

"Their Lordships do humbly report to Your Majesty that the persons
hereinafter named have adhered to Your Majesty's enemies during the
present war:
His Royal Highness Leopold Charles, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence
and Baron Arklow.
His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale,
Earl of Armagh.
His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus (Duke of Brunswick), Prince of
Great Britain and Ireland.
Henry, Viscount Taaffe of Corren and Baron of Ballymote."

The Dukes of Albany and Cumberland you have mentioned in your posts.
The Duke of Brunswick is either the same man as the Duke of Cumberland
or his second son. The two cannot be differentiated one from the other
by means of only their first two forenames.

Viscount Taafe was of an originally Irish family that had been
resident in Austria since the late 17th century.

James
James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

James Dempster

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av James Dempster » 10 des 2006 08:15:51

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:12:16 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Can you please clarify whether the titles (not including the dukedom of
Brunswick, that wasn't British) were formally revoked by the Titles
Deprivation Act (1917) or by the Order in Council of George V accepting
this?

It seems peculiar that the people would be named with their titles under a
reference to the Titles Deprivation Act if this had carried the force of
annulling these titles already. If it did not, and instead the Order in
Council had this effect, then it would appear that these peerages were
indeed revoked by the will of the monarch.

Read what the act said. I have supplied a link to it and posted the

relevant paragraphs here. But here it is again in plain English

1. The act set up a committee of the Privy Council to investigate
2. That committee was to present a report to parliament
3. If neither the House of Lords or the House of Commons passed a
motion disapproving of the report within 40 days it was to be taken as
final
4. The final report was to be presented to the King
5. The persons named in the report were to lose the rights and
privileges of a peer and the rights and privileges to any dignities
and titles.

The act set up the committee and the process but didn't name anyone
because the investigation was to take place thereafter. The Order in
Council is the formal acceptance of the findings of the committee, but
it should be noticed that only parliament could throw out the findings
of the committee. Once the act had passed the King was out of the
process. The act does not provide any means for the King to reject the
list of persons named.

James



James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

Peter Stewart

Re: Gov. Thomas Dudley descended from 1st baron Dudley?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 des 2006 10:22:02

"James Dempster" <talksinsentences@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tccnn2p482sl2ofi2lik7h384j15lqftg5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:12:16 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Can you please clarify whether the titles (not including the dukedom of
Brunswick, that wasn't British) were formally revoked by the Titles
Deprivation Act (1917) or by the Order in Council of George V accepting
this?

It seems peculiar that the people would be named with their titles under a
reference to the Titles Deprivation Act if this had carried the force of
annulling these titles already. If it did not, and instead the Order in
Council had this effect, then it would appear that these peerages were
indeed revoked by the will of the monarch.

Read what the act said. I have supplied a link to it and posted the
relevant paragraphs here. But here it is again in plain English

1. The act set up a committee of the Privy Council to investigate
2. That committee was to present a report to parliament
3. If neither the House of Lords or the House of Commons passed a
motion disapproving of the report within 40 days it was to be taken as
final
4. The final report was to be presented to the King
5. The persons named in the report were to lose the rights and
privileges of a peer and the rights and privileges to any dignities
and titles.

The act set up the committee and the process but didn't name anyone
because the investigation was to take place thereafter. The Order in
Council is the formal acceptance of the findings of the committee, but
it should be noticed that only parliament could throw out the findings
of the committee. Once the act had passed the King was out of the
process. The act does not provide any means for the King to reject the
list of persons named.

The king had only to refuse assent to the Act if he wished to reject the
list of persons named - any Act of Parliament becomes law when it receives
royal assent, not just because it passes in both houses.

It is still not clear to me whether these titles were forfeited on the
king's signing an Act of Parliament or on his signing an Order in Council.
It can't have happened twice. The Act seems to have caused a committe of the
Privy Council to present the king with a list of persons still holding
titles, recommending that these should be revoked. I can't see how this was
effected by a prior Act of Parliament if the fait became accompli later in
the Council.

Shifting the buck is an old ploy of both parliament and palace, of course.

If these titles were validly annulled, and the court believes this today, I
wonder why the queen has not made Prince Edward duke of Albany or
Cumberland - according to Hanoverian and Saxe-Coburg precedents - rather
than making him wait for the new-fangled dukedom of Edinburgh that has never
yet been conferred on a prince of the blood. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»