YoungWillz 21,037 Posted April 4 4 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said: That's a bit unfair. Silly name does not = nob. On the contrary, I've always found the hereditary peers are far better people – nicer and wiser – than the crony life peers the HoL is now stuffed with. His death means there 249 out of the 666 hereditaries removed in 1999 are still living. New and improved list can be found here. Funny to think that King Charles was one of the hereditaries removed in '99! Weeeelllll. I think it's easy to be nice when you inherit huge landholdings from which you derive a merry income, knowing you'll pass it on to your kids relatively tax free because it is held in trust or by a nominated company. Meanwhile, Mrs Pensioner who got that house when her husband died gets her family smashed with a 40 per cent inheritance tax bill. No doubt this chap did a lot of good in his area though. Just a pity they have all the privileges with little of the responsibility we all have in our lives. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ulitzer95 12,586 Posted April 4 Just now, YoungWillz said: Weeeelllll. I think it's easy to be nice when you inherit huge landholdings from which you derive a merry income, knowing you'll pass it on to your kids relatively tax free because it is held in trust or by a nominated company. Meanwhile, Mrs Pensioner who got that house when her husband died gets her family smashed with a 40 per cent inheritance tax bill. No doubt this chap did a lot of good in his area though. Just a pity they have all the privileges with little of the responsibility we all have in our lives. So you're saying peoples' mood and behaviour is driven by their social status or income? That's very classist/snobby of you (see how I turned that against you, motor mouth ). 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ulitzer95 12,586 Posted April 4 Oh and btw, a lot of the hereditaries are absolutely skint. Some live in squalor – flats or houses falling apart in disrepair, leaking pipes, damp and rot everywhere. Just because their great grandfather had money and land does not guarantee they do. There's a lot of modern day ignorance about the hereditaries. The only group of people our population is more ignorant about is the military, what they do and how they operate. Yet, just like the hereditaries, everyone is quick out the door to give you their strong opinion about them. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 21,037 Posted April 4 1 minute ago, Ulitzer95 said: So you're saying peoples' mood and behaviour is driven by their social status or income? That's very classist/snobby of you (see how I turned that against you, motor mouth ). Absolutely I'm saying that. They just have different things to complain about, like their yacht club meeting has been cancelled, or they can't get dinner at The Fat Duck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 21,037 Posted April 4 Just now, Ulitzer95 said: Oh and btw, a lot of the hereditaries are absolutely skint. Some live in squalor – flats or houses falling apart in disrepair, leaking pipes, damp and rot everywhere. Just because their great grandfather had money and land does not guarantee they do. There's a lot of modern day ignorance about the hereditaries. The only group of people our population is more ignorant about is the military, what they do and how they operate. Yet, just like the hereditaries, everyone is quick out the door to give you their strong opinion about them. Oh yes indeedy, the stories of hereditaries whose family have gambled or squandered the wealth their ancestors left are rife. I'm not saying they are all in a lovely position, and a lot of property goes into disrepair or is transferred to the State in due course. But the fact they may have to work a little harder or sell off some family heirlooms to that guy off Salvage Hunters doesn't detract from the fact that these folk get first dibs on all the breaks a Government can give them. Christ, the State will step in and rebuild their properties for them if it were to burn down. 'Mon, we all know how it works. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ulitzer95 12,586 Posted April 5 On 04/04/2024 at 12:51, Ulitzer95 said: His death means that 249 out of the 666 hereditaries removed in 1999 are still living. New and improved list can be found here. Funny to think that King Charles was one of the hereditaries removed in '99! Make that 248. Death notice for Hans Hamilton, 4th Baron HolmPatrick (wiki), aged 69. Sat in the House of Lords as a Conservative peer from 1991 to 1999. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 21,037 Posted April 11 Sir Peter Batho, 3rd Baronet, reportedly dead: https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24243323.former-suffolk-councillor-sir-peter-batho-died-85/ He was a local councillor for many years. (Ah, the entitled!). Heir apparent is his son Rupert (b. 1967) Wiki (mention): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batho_baronets Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 21,037 Posted April 13 Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester has sold his childhood home Barnwell Manor: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13303293/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Ellie-Goulding-Princesses-Eugenie-Beatrice-Royal-Albert-Hall.html Quote The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester should have a spring in their step this weekend. They have, I can disclose, finally sold Barnwell Manor in Northamptonshire, the Duke's childhood home. The Duke, cousin of Queen Elizabeth, put the Tudor mansion on the market 18 months ago, seeking £4.75 million. Last summer, he trimmed £500,000 from the asking price — enough, it transpires, to do the trick. Mentions of the proposed sale on Wiki, thought it worth a mention. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toast 16,137 Posted April 13 2 hours ago, YoungWillz said: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester has sold his childhood home Barnwell Manor: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13303293/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Ellie-Goulding-Princesses-Eugenie-Beatrice-Royal-Albert-Hall.html Mentions of the proposed sale on Wiki, thought it worth a mention. This belongs in the Royal Family thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 21,037 Posted April 13 32 minutes ago, Toast said: This belongs in the Royal Family thread. Tbh, I'm posting him here as he's on my list of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls posted in this thread. But feel free to cross-post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toast 16,137 Posted April 13 It might be of interest here to say that after Prince Richard dies, the Dukedom of Gloucester will cease to be Royal. After two generations they lose their Royal status. Richard's father Henry was a son of a monarch (George V) and Richard a grandson and first cousin of a monarch. After this the relationship of the Duke becomes too distant from the Crown. The same will apply to Kent when Prince Edward, the current Duke of Kent, dies. This is why Edinburgh was changed to a life peerage - to prevent the Dukedom going out of the immediate family. 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Comped 526 Posted April 14 16 hours ago, Toast said: It might be of interest here to say that after Prince Richard dies, the Dukedom of Gloucester will cease to be Royal. After two generations they lose their Royal status. Richard's father Henry was a son of a monarch (George V) and Richard a grandson and first cousin of a monarch. After this the relationship of the Duke becomes too distant from the Crown. The same will apply to Kent when Prince Edward, the current Duke of Kent, dies. This is why Edinburgh was changed to a life peerage - to prevent the Dukedom going out of the immediate family. Any chance of either of those getting the change? I could see them both being preserved for future use... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toast 16,137 Posted April 14 5 hours ago, Comped said: Any chance of either of those getting the change? I could see them both being preserved for future use... I don't think so. Edinburgh was a special case because it was Prince Philip's title and they wanted to keep it for close family. There are other royal dukedoms that are currently extinct that could be dusted off and re-used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 21,037 Posted April 17 DDP pick David Douglas, 12th Marquess of Queensberry reveals how he used judo to fight off a mugger: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13318005/Marquess-Queensberry-uses-judo-fights-mugger-london.html He'll be 95 this year. His brown belt in judo might scare the Reaper off him for a while. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
time 8,599 Posted April 17 2 minutes ago, YoungWillz said: DDP pick David Douglas, 12th Marquess of Queensberry reveals how he used judo to fight off a mugger: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13318005/Marquess-Queensberry-uses-judo-fights-mugger-london.html He'll be 95 this year. His brown belt in judo might scare the Reaper off him for a while. Surely he should have used boxing? 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 21,037 Posted April 17 2 minutes ago, time said: Surely he should have used boxing? He's 5 foot 4 (whatever that means). His attacker was 6ft. He could have gone for the nads, granted, but he used a leg sweep which frightened the mugger off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Comped 526 Posted April 17 4 hours ago, YoungWillz said: He's 5 foot 4 (whatever that means). His attacker was 6ft. He could have gone for the nads, granted, but he used a leg sweep which frightened the mugger off. Exactly the right move in this situation, no pun intended. Boxing with that kind of a height differential would have been absolutely stupid. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toast 16,137 Posted April 17 For anyone who didn't get the allusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ulitzer95 12,586 Posted May 15 On 09/09/2023 at 16:49, YoungWillz said: Updating the list of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls who have reached or will reach 80 or over by or in 2024 (again, Wiki is my friend, any errors are theirs): *snip* Marquesses: Michael Brudenell-Bruce, 8th Marquess of Ailesbury (b. 1926) *snip* Marquess of Ailesbury (wiki) dead at 98 after falling out of window(!) Was apparently trying to save his cat that had got stuck. His 88 year old widow found him lifeless. Pretty brutal stuff. WWII veteran. His death means there are only 2 living hereditary peers who served now (Earl of Elgin, 100, and Baron Walsingham, 99). There is also one life peer (Lord Christopher, 99). Obits: Mirror, The Sun, Mail NOT a DDP pick this year, so no unnatural death bonus. 2 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Comped 526 Posted May 15 26 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said: Marquess of Ailesbury (wiki) dead at 98 after falling out of window(!) Was apparently trying to save his cat that had got stuck. His 88 year old widow found him lifeless. Pretty brutal stuff. WWII veteran. His death means there are only 2 living hereditary peers who served now (Earl of Elgin, 100, and Baron Walsingham, 99). There is also one life peer (Lord Christopher, 99). Obits: Mirror, The Sun, Mail NOT a DDP pick this year, so no unnatural death bonus. Why does Wiki say he's not married, when all these obits seem to say he was? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ulitzer95 12,586 Posted May 15 2 minutes ago, Comped said: Why does Wiki say he's not married, when all these obits seem to say he was? He divorced his 3rd wife in 1992. The Mirror obit I read didn't say wife, it said partner of 33 years, so I presume he was with her from little before his divorce was finalised with his last wife. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Comped 526 Posted May 15 1 minute ago, Ulitzer95 said: He divorced his 3rd wife in 1992. The Mirror obit I read didn't say wife, it said partner of 33 years, so I presume he was with her from little before his divorce was finalised with his last wife. Mail used wife specifically for some reason... If they'd lived together applicably in Scotland before 2006, it'd likely be a marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute, but that's not the case here far as I know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dimreaper 697 Posted May 15 32 minutes ago, Comped said: Mail used wife specifically for some reason... If they'd lived together applicably in Scotland before 2006, it'd likely be a marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute, but that's not the case here far as I know. https://www.thepeerage.com/p2489.htm#i24889 Dailymail is notorious for typos. No mention of her on his peerage page. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Summer in Transylvania 2,175 Posted May 15 3 hours ago, Ulitzer95 said: Marquess of Ailesbury (wiki) dead at 98 after falling out of window(!) Did he upset Putin? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 21,037 Posted May 20 On 09/09/2023 at 16:49, YoungWillz said: Earls: England: Richard Bertie, 14th Earl of Lindsey and 9th Earl of Abingdon (b. 1931) John Montagu, 11th Earl of Sandwich (b. 1943) Paul Capell, 11th Earl of Essex (b. 1944) George Coventry, 13th Earl of Coventry (b. 1939) Earl of Sandwich retires from the Lords: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-05-20/debates/1B5B5F7C-CE80-47C2-B6FA-D842E9C4ADB2/RetirementOfAMemberTheEarlOfSandwich Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
