The British Nobility thread 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm fairly certain that there have been as many if not more peerages in existence that went extinct than exist now so who knows about their continuation. I need to check sources for that admittedly. There have certainly been numerous dukedoms go extinct.

I think what you're saying is that the peerage is not going to go away anytime soon so why not make it sex neutral. Whereas I'm saying the whole system is an anchronism that needs to go & having more female peers is a hindrance to that eventuality.

Not sure how we can reconcile this one?

You understood me correctly. There will of course be some peerages which will soon become extinct, but the mathematical probability that all of the male heirs (and it is worth remembering that even fifteenth cousins may be in line to a peerage) to the hundreds of hereditary peerages which are already in existence will fail at producing sons in the foreseeable future is negligible, I would say. Perhaps the mathematicians can offer a more specific figure?

I still think it's more about class than the rights of women. Aristocratic women have far more in common with aristocratic men than they do with the great majority of other women. I don't really see them as part of a disadvantaged sisterhood. Quite the reverse in fact.

Whether they be aristocratic or working-class, all women are disadvantaged, in fact barred, from inheriting the vast majority of peerages (while an impoverished man retains his succession rights so long as he can prove his male bloodline). Maintaining the current system works only for the advantage of men.

What about a compromise step, striking "heirs male" and simply allowing girls to inherit in the absence of boys, as has been done on occasion?

That probably won't satisfy anyone.

Except for the peers who want to keep their peerage in their line of the family but didn't succeed at producing sons. Many of them would be pleased.

 

[Durham]

You understood me correctly. There will of course be some peerages which will soon become extinct, but the mathematical probability that all of the male heirs (and it is worth remembering that even fifteenth cousins may be in line to a peerage) to the hundreds of hereditary peerages which are already in existence will fail at producing sons in the foreseeable future is negligible, I would say. Perhaps the mathematicians can offer a more specific figure?


Whether they be aristocratic or working-class, all women are disadvantaged, in fact barred, from inheriting the vast majority of peerages (while an impoverished man retains his succession rights so long as he can prove his male bloodline). Maintaining the current system works only for the advantage of men.


E

The fist Duke of Westminster had seven sons. Today there is no one in line to inherit although the present duke is admittedly a young man. The extinction of the peerage is certainly a glacial process. Families of course are much smaller today.

Fundamentally we see this though different prisms. The aristocracy is an outrage not because of the way it treats woman but because of its very existence.

There is little love lost for the aristocracy in Britain. They're not viewed in the same way as the monarchy at all by most. As a group they have a history of exploitation. They're a rentier class living off the labour of others. Aristocratic women as much as men benefited from the system. Their history in Ireland & involvement in the Highland clearances are notable examples of their ruthlessness. In England they lived off the fat of the land but underneath there was often a tradition of agrarian radicalism & resentment. I don't see them as some quaint historical relic but as an embodiment of inherited wealth & privilege & residual influence. This article is an interesting read. It's the Guardian so it has a particular perspective but it's a thought provoking read none the less.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/07/how-the-aristocracy-preserved-their-power

If time is to be set aside for legislation on the succession rights of women then use that parliamentary time to include a proper debate on the peerage system as a whole. Allow a free vote on abolition & succession.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The fist Duke of Westminster had seven sons. Today there is no one in line to inherit although the present duke is admittedly a young man. The extinction of the peerage is certainly a glacial process. Families of course are much smaller today.

Families are smaller, but mortality is lower and fertility treatments and the means to select the sex of one's offspring are in use by wealthy families today. Given the hundreds of hereditary peerages in existence and the long lines of succession to many of them, the extinction of all hereditary peerages would as you say require a "glacial process" and therefore will not take place within the foreseeable future - I hope we can agree on this much.

Fundamentally we see this though different prisms. The aristocracy is an outrage not because of the way it treats woman but because of its very existence.

There is little love lost for the aristocracy in Britain. They're not viewed in the same way as the monarchy at all by most. As a group they have a history of exploitation. They're a rentier class living off the labour of others. Aristocratic women as much as men benefited from the system. Their history in Ireland & involvement in the Highland clearances are notable examples of their ruthlessness. In England they lived off the fat of the land but underneath there was often a tradition of agrarian radicalism & resentment. I don't see them as some quaint historical relic but as an embodiment of inherited wealth & privilege & residual influence. This article is an interesting read. It's the Guardian so it has a particular perspective but it's a thought provoking read none the less.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/07/how-the-aristocracy-preserved-their-power

Thank you for posting the article; it is a good one. The continuing privilege and influence of the aristocracy is often glossed over and you are quite right that it is no historical relic. Precisely for that reason, aristocratic women have not benefited "as much as" aristocratic men as the powerful system has ensured that the hereditary fortunes and influence have nearly always passed to male lines. Note that each of the aristocratic landowners cited in the article are men.

Yes, we fundamentally see it differently. I do not see why the aristocracy's history of exploitation and ruthlessless should excuse its treatment of women as unequal to men. We must agree to disagree on this.

If time is to be set aside for legislation on the succession rights of women then use that parliamentary time to include a proper debate on the peerage system as a whole. Allow a free vote on abolition & succession.

Both separate issues merit their own proper debate, but at least we can agree that a free vote ought to be allowed on both.

 

[victor1319]

Fundamentally we see this though different prisms. The aristocracy is an outrage not because of the way it treats woman but because of its very existence.

In my humble opinion, the questions of the aristocracy and the peerage should be viewed more positive: They are remnants of the old ages! In many other countries there were revolutions with revolutionary terror and guillotines and Lenins, Stalins and so on... Hitler (who was the result of the fast, too fast change from Empire to Republic) - not necessarily the better way.

In England the development towards a democracy was organic and started already in the Middle Ages! And it is a pretty cool system now, much better then elsewhere.

Human deeds are never perfect, anyway! ?

 

[Durham]

Families are smaller, but mortality is lower and fertility treatments and the means to select the sex of one's offspring are in use by wealthy families today. Given the hundreds of hereditary peerages in existence and the long lines of succession to many of them, the extinction of all hereditary peerages would as you say require a "glacial process" and therefore will not take place within the foreseeable future - I hope we can agree on this much.




Thank you for posting the article; it is a good one. The continuing privilege and influence of the aristocracy is often glossed over and you are quite right that it is no historical relic. Precisely for that reason, aristocratic women have not benefited "as much as" aristocratic men as the powerful system has ensured that the hereditary fortunes and influence have nearly always passed to male lines. Note that each of the aristocratic landowners cited in the article are men.

Yes, we fundamentally see it differently. I do not see why the aristocracy's history of exploitation and ruthlessless should excuse its treatment of women as unequal to men. We must agree to disagree on this.




Both separate issues merit their own proper debate, but at least we can agree that a free vote ought to be allowed on both.

We can certainly agree to that. So long as the vote on abolition comes first.

Incidentally here is an (rather saccharine) obituary on the Countess of Sutherland. She inherited the earldom while a cousin inherited the dukedom of Sutherland.

They were both descended from the infamous first Duke and Duchess-Countess of Sutherland. Both duke & duchess-countess were equally involved in the notorious clearances. Plenty of women were as ruthless as the men. And indeed remain so in their determination to preserve their class.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opin...utherland-inherited-premier-earldom-scotland/

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Incidentally here is an (rather saccharine) obituary on the Countess of Sutherland. She inherited the earldom while a cousin inherited the dukedom of Sutherland.

They were both descended from the infamous first Duke and Duchess-Countess of Sutherland. Both duke & duchess-countess were equally involved in the notorious clearances. Plenty of women were as ruthless as the men. And indeed remain so in their determination to preserve their class.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opin...utherland-inherited-premier-earldom-scotland/

I am sure few would claim that women lack the capacity to be as ruthless as men, but due to laws and customs and systemic inequality, women have had more limited opportunities to rise to influence, whether it be as hereditary monarchs and aristocrats or as elected or appointed authorities.

 

[Durham]

In my humble opinion, the questions of the aristocracy and the peerage should be viewed more positive: They are remnants of the old ages! In many other countries there were revolutions with revolutionary terror and guillotines and Lenins, Stalins and so on... Hitler (who was the result of the fast, too fast change from Empire to Republic) - not necessarily the better way.

In England the development towards a democracy was organic and started already in the Middle Ages! And it is a pretty cool system now, much better then elsewhere.

Human deeds are never perfect, anyway! ?

Thank you, that's an interesting perspective. There's a lot of people in Britain who would view our history very differently of course but we have at least escaped violent revolution & dictatorship since the mid seventeenth century. The establishment/aristocracy were very clever!

I am sure few would claim that women lack the capacity to be as ruthless as men, but due to laws and customs and systemic inequality, women have had more limited opportunities to rise to influence, whether it be as hereditary monarchs and aristocrats or as elected or appointed authorities.

Which is why women should be campaigning to abolish the peerage not buy into its continuation. It was designed by & for men. It's exploitative, patriarchal as well as unreformable. The ethical choice is abolition not preservation.

I will get of my soap box now

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Which is why women should be campaigning to abolish the peerage not buy into its continuation. It was designed by & for men. It's exploitative, patriarchal as well as unreformable. The ethical choice is abolition not preservation.

I will get of my soap box now

I would change that to say that men and women who view the peerage as unreformable should be campaigning to abolish the peerage rather than buying into the continuation of the patriarchal system.

Likewise.

 

[Durham]

I would change that to say that men and women who view the peerage as unreformable should be campaigning to abolish the peerage rather than buying into the continuation of the patriarchal system.

Likewise.

I'd change patriarchal for class & take out "who view the peerage as unreformable" but it's as near as dammit for me.?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I'd change patriarchal for class [...] but it's as near as dammit for me.?

I'm not sure if I understand what you meant by "near as dammit", but I am aware that one can campaign against the class system and still be in support of patriarchal rules. Nonetheless, my view is as said above.

 

[Durham]

I'm not sure if I understand what you meant by "near as dammit", but I am aware that one can campaign against the class system and still be in support of patriarchal rules. Nonetheless, my view is as said above.

It means so close that there is little difference worth noting.

Yes I take your point. Similarly you can campaign against the patriarchy & acquiesce in, or even support & benefit from, an unequal class system.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It means so close that there is little difference worth noting.

Yes I take your point. Similarly you can campaign against the patriarchy & acquiesce in, or even support & benefit from, an unequal class system.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, of course, but my point was that acquiescing to the current system allows both to continue.

 

[Durham]

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, of course, but my point was that acquiescing to the current system allows both to continue.

Understood. In agreement.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Which is why women should be campaigning to abolish the peerage not buy into its continuation. It was designed by & for men. It's exploitative, patriarchal as well as unreformable. The ethical choice is abolition not preservation.

I will get of my soap box now

Or do it like other North-West European countries: consider it as historic patrimonium without any rights derived from their nobility.

In practice this means: turn the unelected House of Lords into an Upper House with electoral mandate, no new hereditary creations except for the spouse of the monarch and the heir. No Life creations either since the House of Lords is no more.

Existing nobility is respected. Only new nobility by recognition of older rights, for an example the Lyon King of Arms investigates an appeal of a Danish nobleman whom applied for British nationality and advises the Home Secretary to accept or reject the Letters Patent of a foreign (former) monarchy with a comparable system of nobility.

 

[Durham]

In practice this means: turn the unelected House of Lords into an Upper House with electoral mandate, no new hereditary creations except for the spouse of the monarch and the heir. No Life creations either since the House of Lords is no more.

Existing nobility is respected. Only new nobility by recognition of older rights, for an example the Lyon King of Arms investigates an appeal of a Danish nobleman whom applied for British nationality and advises the Home Secretary to accept or reject the Letters Patent of a foreign (former) monarchy with a comparable system of nobility.

I'm sure what you say will come at some point. It is unresolved constitutional business.

Well that's the issue really as Tatiana Maria have been discussing of course. Respecting the existing system allows discrimination by sex & reforming it perpetuates indefinitely an at best absurd institution that is well past its sell by date. Not sure what the answer is really. It would certainly make for an interesting parliamentary debate.

I'm fairly confident that no foreign titles of nobility are recognised in Britain. Happy to be educated on this if wrong. One problem is that some European aristocracies have innumerable title holders. Counts & barons by the bucket load. At least the British one has always been relatively small in number, even if obscenely rich, influential & monopolisers of the land.

 

[victor1319]

The establishment/aristocracy were very clever!

One could even have the impression, they have been cunning... But this is not how the dices of fate rolled imho.

There was always this "other tradtion" with the City of London, which exists since Alfred the Great! I mean, if you think about this: The trader and banker "nobility" is much older than the Norman roots of the peerage!

And the most of the aristocracy of landowners would be totally bankrupt and their huge castles and manors Golf Club Hotels instead of the part time museums, which they are now, if the noble families would have not been so brutal against the majority of their own offspring: They practically disinherited them in favour of the oldest sons.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Or do it like other North-West European countries: consider it as historic patrimonium without any rights derived from their nobility.

In practice this means: turn the unelected House of Lords into an Upper House with electoral mandate, no new hereditary creations except for the spouse of the monarch and the heir. No Life creations either since the House of Lords is no more.

Existing nobility is respected. Only new nobility by recognition of older rights, for an example the Lyon King of Arms investigates an appeal of a Danish nobleman whom applied for British nationality and advises the Home Secretary to accept or reject the Letters Patent of a foreign (former) monarchy with a comparable system of nobility.

I'm fairly confident that no foreign titles of nobility are recognised in Britain. Happy to be educated on this if wrong. One problem is that some European aristocracies have innumerable title holders. Counts & barons by the bucket load. At least the British one has always been relatively small in number, even if obscenely rich, influential & monopolisers of the land.

In much of Europe the nobility officially has been abolished or at least stripped of its rank and privileges. Which leads me to wonder about the practical issue: Even if the UK Parliament were to abolish the peerage officially, would it effectively change the system, aside from removing the hereditary peers from the House of Lords? We can see today from other European countries which no longer recognize nobility that in all probability, the abolished peers and their male heirs would continue using their titles, passing on their inherited wealth and lands to their eldest sons (and not to their daughters), and enjoying their class privilege and influence.

Well that's the issue really as Tatiana Maria have been discussing of course. Respecting the existing system allows discrimination by sex & reforming it perpetuates indefinitely an at best absurd institution that is well past its sell by date. Not sure what the answer is really. It would certainly make for an interesting parliamentary debate.

Just as a clarification of my part of yesterday's discussion, I see perpetuating the existing system as the result of respecting (preserving) it. But I know you see it differently.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Lord Bath, Alexander Thynn has died aged 87. He was admitted to hospital on March 28th, and confirmed to have Coronavirus. He has several underlying health issues.

He leaves two children, son Ceawlin Viscount Weymouth and daughter Lady Lenka Thynn.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1246758457728020480

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In much of Europe the nobility officially has been abolished or at least stripped of its rank and privileges. Which leads me to wonder about the practical issue: Even if the UK Parliament were to abolish the peerage officially, would it effectively change the system, aside from removing the hereditary peers from the House of Lords? We can see today from other European countries which no longer recognize nobility that in all probability, the abolished peers and their male heirs would continue using their titles, passing on their inherited wealth and lands to their eldest sons (and not to their daughters), and enjoying their class privilege and influence.




Just as a clarification of my part of yesterday's discussion, I see perpetuating the existing system as the result of respecting (preserving) it. But I know you see it differently.

But wealth is not really the problem. There are obscenely wealthy "commoners" as well. It is about having political influence without democratic mandate, which is the problem.

In Germany we see Beatrix von Storch née Herzogin von Oldenburg, Berengar Elsner von Gronow, Christian Freiherr von Stetten, Alexander Graf von Lambsdorff, Michael von Abercron, Hermann Otto Prinz zu Solms-Hohensolms-Lich, Matern Freiherr Marschall von Bieberstein, Hanns-Georg Ritter von der Marwitz, Wilhelm von Gottberg, and other blue-blooded parliamentarians as elected members of the Bundestag (the Lower House), with exactly the same electoral mandate as Angela Merkel, to name a fellow member of the Bundestag.

So one can live on an ancestral estate, have wealth, have a title and run for Parliament, like any "commoner".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But wealth is not really the problem. There are obscenely wealthy "commoners" as well. It is about having political influence without democratic mandate, which is the problem.

[...]

I had the impression that Durham was for the most part addressing wealth, land ownership, and social class (see message #1264 in particular).

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Lord Bath with his giraffes
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1265217

 

[eya]

Lord Bath, Alexander Thynn has died aged 87. He was admitted to hospital on March 28th, and confirmed to have Coronavirus. He has several underlying health issues.

He leaves two children, son Ceawlin Viscount Weymouth and daughter Lady Lenka Thynn.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1246758457728020480

Viscountess Weymouth about the death of her father in law

https://www.instagram.com/p/B-mW4LqjCIo/

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

RIP. Lord Bath was quite the eccentric and a controversial character too, perhaps.

 

[Heavs]

RIP. Lord Bath was quite the eccentric and a controversial character too, perhaps.

Yes, I remember when I was quite young and he occasionally popped up on Animal Park I thought he was the quintessential eccentric lord. It was later I read about the more controversial things.

 

[Durham]

Short clip from the Smithsonian on Chatsworth which mentions its Kennedy links.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Wonderful insight and I was just think at how Kathleen Agnes Kennedy and William Cavendish both died tragically.

 

[Durham]

Wonderful insight and I was just think at how Kathleen Agnes Kennedy and William Cavendish both died tragically.

Yes they did at young ages sadly.

In Black Diamonds it covers Lady Hartington's relationship with Earl Fitzwilliam after her husband's death.

The Fitzwillams pile is even bigger than Chatsworth.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The death of Sir Stirling Craufurd Moss, OBE aged 90 in London was announced by his widow Lady Moss.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-12...ZN7fMAJIw9IhS_J841msD4FfxcorPaTFkTJJyYAU0_PlI

 

[sndral]

Article about Earl Cardigan and his son & the estate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...8-sold-16th-century-family-mansion-11-5m.html
ETA link w/ background info. about the long running disputes involving the Earl & various parties. http://tweedlandthegentlemansclub.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-last-charge-of-poor-brigade.html

 

[Biri]

A New Descendant of Prime Minister Winston Churchill was born:

An increase in the descendants of Sir Winston Churchill. Lily Hope Maud, was born 19 April, 2020, to Flora Caroline Soames [born 1982], scion of the Soames landed family, and her partner [Charles] Alexander Macdonald-Buchanan [born 1970], scion of that landed family.

Lily is a great-great granddaughter of Churchill, and a great-great-great-granddaughter of the Victorian prime minister, Lord Rosebery.

Mother Flora, is the interior designer daughter of the Hon Jeremy Bernard Soames [born 25 May, 1952], by his wife the former Susanna Keith [born 23 Oct, 1952], and is a granddaughter of the late Baron Soames, GCMG, GCVO [1920-87], by his wife Mary Spencer-Churchill [1922-2014], scion of the Dukes of Marlborough, Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, daughter of the Rt Hon Sir Winston Spencer-Churchill, KG [1894-1965], Prime Minister 1940-45, and 1951-55.

[Charles] Alexander Macdonald-Buchanan [born 1970], ceramic artist, is the fourth son of Alexander James Macdonald-Buchanan [1931-2017], by his his wife the former Elizabeth Vivian Smith [born 30 March, 1939], scion of the Barons Bicester, daughter of Maj the Hon Hugh Adeane Vivian Smith [1910-78], by his wife the former Lady Helen Dorothy Primrose [1913-1998], daughter of the 6th Earl of Rosebery [1882-1974], son of the 5th Earl of Rosebery [1847-1929], Prime Minister 1894-5.

Source: https://peeragenews.blogspot.com/202...anan-born.html