The British Nobility thread 2: Sep 2022 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
During the session of Parliament which is coming to a close, discussions were held on two private members' bills to allow females to succeed to peerages: one bill proposed to allow female succession but with priority for sons over daughters, another proposed equal rights for women. As usual for governments regardless of political party (even though the current Prime Minister supported female succession when he was a backbench MP), the Government declined to support either bill, though it only commented on the first (son-preference) bill.

The debates can be found here.


It's interesting to read the various arguments. It seems that the main problem that they expect to get support for is that by keeping the rules as they are a portion of the seats in the house of Lords (called 'the other place' in the House of Commons) is designated for men.

Those who want daughters to inherit if no sons are available often have a personal interest at stake - while also stressing the importance of a gradual introduction to female inheritance given the far-reaching consequences of introducing absolute primogeniture immediately. The other bill therefore intends to imply this principle gradually by excluding the heirs that have already been identified. Several members refer to the changes in the line to the throne and advocate for the rest of the peerage to follow suit (although excluding any royal titles from the application of this bill).

Does anyone know more about Lord Lucas? He is against reviving titles that became extinct (part of the proposal for inheritance of women when no men are available) and explained that he would have a claim to the title Duke of Kent otherwise...

The debate on full equal primogeniture was scheduled to continue later this month, however, I assume the upcoming elections might put a stop to that.
 
Can someone please help me find out how Ralph Percy, 12th Duke of Northumberland is related to Sarah, Duchess of York, I know they share William Montagu Douglas Scott, 6th Duke of Buccleuch as their common ancestor so does that make them third cousins?
 
I think it's safe to say since now the Duke of Westminster is now happily married that now the most eligible bachelor would Louis Spencer, Viscount Althorp. A nephew of Princess Diana and a cousin to a future King doesn't sound too bad.
And Earl Percy, the older son of the duke of Nurthubmerland
 
Can someone please help me find out how Ralph Percy, 12th Duke of Northumberland is related to Sarah, Duchess of York, I know they share William Montagu Douglas Scott, 6th Duke of Buccleuch as their common ancestor so does that make them third cousins?

They are third cousins, yes.

William -> Herbert -> Marian -> Ronald -> Sarah
William -> John -> Walter -> Elizabeth -> Ralph

This page will let you trace the descent to Sarah and Ralph through the 6th Duke's two sons, Herbert and John.
 
They are third cousins, yes.

William -> Herbert -> Marian -> Ronald -> Sarah
William -> John -> Walter -> Elizabeth -> Ralph

This page will let you trace the descent to Sarah and Ralph through the 6th Duke's two sons, Herbert and John.
So that would make their children, Third cousin's once removed to each other correct?

Thank you.
 
So that would make their children, Third cousin's once removed to each other correct?

Not quite, no - their children are fourth cousins.

The 'removed' part of a cousin description only applies when there is an unequal number of generations from the common ancestor. So, Beatrice and Eugenie are Ralph's third cousins once removed, but his children's fourth cousins.

This article provides a useful description of how the 'removed' thing works with first, second, third and further cousins. It can be confusing until you get the hang of it :)
 
I think it's safe to say since now the Duke of Westminster is now happily married that now the most eligible bachelor would Louis Spencer, Viscount Althorp. A nephew of Princess Diana and a cousin to a future King doesn't sound too bad.
Princess Margaret’s 3 grandsons Arthur and Sam Chatto, and Charles Armstrong-Jones belongs to that list as well.
 
But Arthur and Sam Chatto aren’t nobles, or even landed gentry, more like upper middle class.
Untitled yes, but being grandsons of a Princess by blood, great grandchildren of a King, and nr 29 and 30 in line to the throne, they have more blue blood than most aristocrats of today
 
Last edited:
Untitled yes, but being grandsons of a Princess by blood, great grandchildren of a King, and nr 29 and 30 in line to the throne, they have more blue blood than most aristocrats of today
Nope. You can say they are well connected, but them being more “blue blooded” is a stretch. Plus this is about the British nobility, which they are not part of.
 
Nope. You can say they are well connected, but them being more “blue blooded” is a stretch.

"Blue blood" can refer to royal as well as noble blood (which they have as well), and I think royal blood would be considered "bluer" by most.

Plus this is about the British nobility, which they are not part of.

Actually, the original post referred to royal family connections and being the "most eligible bachelor":

I think it's safe to say since now the Duke of Westminster is now happily married that now the most eligible bachelor would Louis Spencer, Viscount Althorp. A nephew of Princess Diana and a cousin to a future King doesn't sound too bad.
 
"Blue blood" can refer to royal as well as noble blood (which they have as well), and I think royal blood would be considered "bluer" by most.



Actually, the original post referred to royal family connections and being the "most eligible bachelor":
They are not nobles. The post you highlighted mentions an eligible bachelor who holds a courtesy title and is the son of a peer, which the Chatto boys do not have. The only thing they have is that they are well connected, but being blue blooded more than others is debatable. It’s also about status, and their status is of untitled gentlemen with fairly close connections to the royal family. Blue bloods typically refer to nobles or royals, neither of which the Chatto boys are.
 
The Marchioness of Bath attended the Ralph Lauren and Selfridges event to celebrate Father & Son Day's 10 year anniversary in aid of The Royal Marden Cancer Charity in London yesterday, June 11:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **
 
The Marquess and Marchioness of Bath attended a private view of "Vivienne Westwood: The Personal Collection" in London today, June 13:


** Pic ** gettyimages gallery **
 
The Marchioness of Bath attended the Fashion Trust Arabia London dinner in celebration of the FTA 2023 winners at Claridges Hotel in London yesterday, June 17:


** Pic ** gettyimages gallery **
 
The Marchioness of Bath was among the guests at the V&A Summer Party 2024 Celebrating "NAOMI: In Fashion" in London this evening, June 19:


** Pic **
 
The Marchioness of Bath attended Vogue World: Paris at Place Vendome in Paris on June 23:


** Pic **
 
The Marchioness of Bath (pictured with Venus Williams) attended The Serpentine Gallery Summer Party 2024 this evening, June 25:


** Pic **
 
On June 27 the Marchioness of Bath attended The Boodles Tennis 2024 at Stoke Park and the Breitling Knightsbridge launch party and 140th anniversary celebration:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **
 
On July 3 the Marchioness of Bath attended an event by IWC Schaffhausen in London to celebrate ten years of partnership with Lewis Hamilton:


** Pic **
 
This is kind of random but can someone please help me find out how Cressida Bonas (Prince Harry's ex) was related to him? I found out they had a common ancestor, Richard Curzon-Howe, 1st Earl Howe. His daughter with his second wife, Mary Hamilton, Duchess of Abercorn, is the great-great-grandmother of Diana, Princess of Wales. Mary's brother Montagu Curzon is the great-great-grandfather of Cressida.
 
This is kind of random but can someone please help me find out how Cressida Bonas (Prince Harry's ex) was related to him? I found out they had a common ancestor, Richard Curzon-Howe, 1st Earl Howe. His daughter with his second wife, Mary Hamilton, Duchess of Abercorn, is the great-great-grandmother of Diana, Princess of Wales. Mary's brother Montagu Curzon is the great-great-grandfather of Cressida.
They are fourth or fifth half cousins
 
This Telegraph article from earlier this year indicates that the European Court of Human Rights has decided not to hear the case filed by the Daughters' Rights advocacy group in 2018 to contest the sexism in succession laws to peerages and thus to the hereditary peers' seats in the House of Lords (the upper chamber of Britain's parliament).


About the case:


Interestingly, even though the new government (like every government before it) appears to intend to uphold sexist succession laws in the peerage, it also cited those very same sexist succession laws as an argument for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords, saying that there should not be seats effectively reserved for men.


Polls in past years have shown that strong majorities of British adults are in favor of removing the sexism from the succession laws as well as removing the hereditary peers from the Lords, respectively. However, if and when the hereditary peers are in fact removed, sexist succession laws may become even more entrenched, as it will no longer be a matter that affects Parliament.
 
After attaining an overwhelming Labour Party majority in the House of Commons in the July 4 elections, the new government led by Sir Keir Starmer confirmed its plans to eliminate the seats reserved for hereditary peers from the House of Lords in the King's Speech of July 17.


However, the campaign pledge to implement a mandatory retirement age for the House of Lords was dropped, possibly because even members of the Prime Minister's own party spoke out against the ageism of the policy.


A statistically representative poll of British adults conducted by YouGov immediately after the King's Speech asked for their opinion of the announced change:


Removing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords

Good idea 57%
Wrong priority at the present time 24%
Don't know 19%

Interestingly, even though the hereditary peers' seats are effectively reserved for men, and disproportionately occupied by old and wealthy men, there are no clear divisions in opinion between men and women, between older and younger adults, or between upper/middle- and working-class adults.

However, there is a very large partisan division: The planned reform is far more popular with Labour Party voters (73% good idea, 14% wrong priority) than Conservative Party voters (43% wrong priority, 42% good idea). An obvious possible explanation is that because virtually all hereditary peers in the Lords who are members of a political party belong to the Conservative Party, removing the hereditary peers would eliminate a large bloc of Conservative votes from the House of Lords.

The planned removal also has slightly less support in England (55% good idea, 25% wrong priority) than in Scotland (68% good idea, 14% wrong priority), with Wales in between.




Eight days after the King's Speech, on July 25, 2024, the House of Lords – with the agreement of both governing and opposition parties – voted to suspend elections for the hereditary peers' seats until January 2026.



That, until 24 January 2026, Standing Order 9(5) (Hereditary peers: by-elections) be amended as follows: leave out “three” and insert “eighteen”.

My Lords, I am bringing this Motion forward after discussions with the usual channels which followed conversations with colleagues across the House. The current position is that by-elections need to take place within three months of there being a vacancy. This Motion simply extends that period, by amending the standing order, to 18 months. In practical terms, for a vacancy that arose today, a by-election would need to be held by January 2026. After 18 months—in January 2026—the Motion will be sunset and the normal time limits for by-elections will come back if they are needed by that point.

This is a temporary measure that recognises that the House will in the near future debate in more detail the wider issue of hereditary membership of your Lordships’ House. The usual channels are unanimous in their view that ongoing by-elections during the parliamentary consideration of a Bill would be deeply undesirable in this context. In particular, the Cross-Bench and Conservative groups, which have two current vacancies, do not wish those by-elections to occur.


Am I right to read this as a confirmation that the Government is serious about removing the hereditary peers' seats in the near future and intends to do so before January 2026?
 
:previous:

On September 5, the Government published its bill to remove the 92 seats reserved for hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Presuming the bill passes, the reform will enter into force at the close of this session of Parliament, which is scheduled for July 2025. The bill and its explanatory notes can be read on Parliament's website.


On the same day, the Government confirmed that although the proposed mandatory retirement age for Lords was dropped from the King's Speech, it will continue to conduct consultations on that and other potential changes to the House of Lords.

 
Dreadful news. If anything, most life peers should be expelled from the Lords!

Without the presence of the country’s ancient families providing above-daily-politics guidance, the Lords serves no purpose. It’ll be a retirement home for party donors and past-their-sell-by-date politicians.
 
The Marchioness of Bath attended the Harris Reed SS25 Show in London yesterday, September 12:


** Pic **
 
The Marchioness of Bath attended the Burberry Summer 2025 show and the screening of upcoming Disney+ series "In Vogue: The 90s" during London Fashion Week today, September 16:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **
 
The Marchioness seems to be lovely, well-dressed, and cool.
 
Back
Top Bottom