murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the tag “Earls of Essex”

Did the producers recognise him?

Here is a picture you may well have seen.

 

It shows, from Carry On Henry, Kenneth Williams as Thomas Cromwell, Lord Privy Seal to Henry VIII and briefly Earl of Essex.

In fact, Cromwell’s sister married one Thomas (or Morgan) Williams, although their descendants took the Cromwell surname.

Advertisements

In suo jure (or titles that did pass through the female line)

In this post, we reminded our readers that a lineal Lancastrian is a person descended from Blanche, the younger daughter of Henry of Grosmont, not from her husband, John of Gaunt, by another wife.

Titles usually fit into these categories:
i) To begin with, many older titles were created before Letters Patent in such a way that they could pass directly through the female line.
ii) Newer (late mediaeval onwards) titles were created under Letters Patent and theoretically could not but were in practice, as we shall see.
iii) Many Scottish titles, which are similar to category i. A good example is the late Michael Abney-Hastings (left, also known as “Britain’s Real Monarch”), who succeeded his mother and grandmother to the Earldom of Loudon after they both lost their only brothers during the World Wars.

In a significant number of category ii cases, the title in question was re-conferred on the previous holder’s son-in-law, in jure uxoris, before passing to the couple’s children. This is a frequently observed constitutional fiction, as these cases, some of them close to Richard III, testify:
1) Richard’s uncle and posthumous father-in-law the Kingmaker (right) was Earl of Warwick in jure uxoris. He was killed in 1471 and left two daughters, who died in 1477 and 1485 but his widow Anne Beauchamp, whose brother had previously been Duke of Warwick, remained as Countess until she died in 1492. Only then did her remaining grandson inherit the title.
2) Although the Dukedom of Norfolk is now (from 1483) limited to “the heirs male of the first Duke, lawfully begotten”, it passed through female hands several times before then. Margaret of Brotherton held it first, then her daughter’s son Thomas Mowbray. Anne, the last Mowbray was orphaned in 1476 and was Duchess until her 1481 death, as Edward IV sought to hijack the title for his middle son, Richard of Shrewsbury. John Howard was then “created” to this title through his mother. Under normal circumstances, it would have been in abeyance because his aunt’s male line, the Berkeleys, was still in existence. William Howard similarly married Mary Stafford in 1637, after her teenage brother’s death and was created Viscount Stafford, although
Mary retained the Barony for life.
3) Thomas of Woodstock was Earl of Essex, as was his daughter’s son, Henry Bourchier (d.1483) and Henry’s great-granddaughter Anne (d.1571). Similarly, Henry’s granddaughter Cecily married John Devereux and their great-grandson, Walter, was Earl of Essex from 1572. Their son, executed in 1601, is shown left.
4) In this case, we reintroduce Blanche. John of Gaunt was only “created” Duke in 1362 after Blanche’s father, elder sister Maud and infant niece had died. It is through Blanche, although we know it to be a fiction, that Henry IV claimed the throne.
5) Finally, we show (right) the sister of the present Duke of Norfolk and her famous late husband. Lady Carina Fitzalan-Howard has a brother and an elder sister. The 1483 remainder precludes her inheritance of the title.

In summary:
1) None of these titles passed to a child by the “wrong” wife of an in jure uxoris peer.
2) Some feminist writers, including some of the noblewomen who cannot inherit the titles, have said that such remainders are now an anachronism. However, to cancel them today would surely discriminate against past women, such that their fathers would not have inherited in the first place.

 

That lawyer in Utah …

As you can see from the article, the author (Tom Leonard) knows the answer to be in the negative because the Royal Marriages Act 1772 precludes the descendants of George II from marrying without the sovereign’s consent – that sovereign being George III at the time.

James Ord’s putative ancestor is another James Ord, born in 1786, whose parents were supposedly the future George IV and Mrs. Fitzherbert (nee’ Smythe), yet only daughters have traditionally been attributed to them:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3663104/Could-ex-Mormon-lawyer-true-heir-British-throne-scandalous-royal-marriage-George-IV-s-love-child-intriguing-question.html

Of course, there are more established aristocrats in the USA. The current Earl of Essex is a retired teacher and septagenarian bachelor whilst his heir presumptive is a retired grocery clerk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Capell

For comparison, the only known male line descendants of George III are from Germany, as his son Ernst returned to become King of Hanover:
http://www.genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000189&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=4

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/dna-is-used-to-determine-legitimacy/

The Shakespearean editor who was descended from Richard III’s sister …

… was Sir Edward Capell, son of the vicar of Stanton in Suffolk. He was, as you can see , a cousin of the Earls of Essex through Arthur Capell Baron Hadham, a descendant of Anne Duchess of Exeter.

We like to answer our readers’ queries …

On Thursday, someone enquired: “Who had a better claim to the throne than Henry VII”?

The short answer (excluding the right by conquest): almost anyone.
Conventionally, his mother was descended from Edward III through the Beaufort line, but they were only legitimised “excepta dignitate regali”. However, the balance of evidence suggests that his parents were undispensed first cousins, making Henry personally illegitimate. Then again, his great-grandfather, the first Beaufort, may have been a legitimate Swynford, giving him no royal descent at all. According to the latest DNA evidence, this latter conclusion is at least 5% probable.

The long answer: In summer 1485, apart from the reigning King Richard III, his Suffolk nephews all had claims and there were a few of those. Even if we discount women from reigning in their own right, many of his nieces later had sons. His father’s sister, Isobel, was married to an Earl of Essex and had Bourchier issue. His grandmother Anne Mortimer was the last of her line but Richard of Cambridge had a sister, Constance, through whom Anne Neville and the Barons Bergavenny descend. After Anne Mortimer but before Cambridge’s cousins would come the legitimate, unattainted Lancastrians in Portugal. Then there was an Earl of Kent and, as soon as attainders could be reversed, there was an Earl of Warwick and a Stafford heir.

Have we forgotten anyone?

Would you believe it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2861643/CHRISTOPHER-STEVENS-Damian-Lewis-No-best-Henry-VIII-Sid-James.html

Yes, Sid James’ was probably the best portrayal of Henry VIII on screen, but the first (Arthur BOURCHIER, 1911) actually shared the surname of some of that King’s (apparent) relatives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Bourchier

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: