Talk:Lord Great Chamberlain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] General discussion

Perhaps a list of those who have actually acted as Lord Great Chamberlain is in order, in addition to and separate from the list of those who have held the hereditary right to the office? john 07:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Emsworth has this:

  • Marjorie Wynn-Carrington B. Nunburnholme (d. 1968) - Charles John Wilson 3rd B. Nun. (d. 1974) - Ben Charles Wilson 4th B. Nun. (d. 1998) - Charles Wilson 5th B. Nun. (d. 2000) - Four Daughters (?)
Nothing to add on this. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • L. Alexandra Palmer - (?)
No information here, either. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
She died in 1955. john 23:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Ruperta Legge C. Dartmouth - L. Mary Cecilia Legge; L. Elizabeth Legge; L. Diana Legge; L. Barbara Legge; L. Josceline Gabrielle Legge (d. 1995) - ... Arthur Patrick Chichester E. Belfast
The Countess died in 1963. Lady Diana Legge died in 1970. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Judith Keppel C. Albemarle (d. 1928) - Rufus Arnold Alexis Keppel, 10th E. Alb.
As I noted on the page, the Countess of Albemarle predeceased her father. Her eldest son, Viscount Bury, held this twentieth of the Great Chamberlainship from 1928 to 1968. The 10th Earl of Albemarle succeeded his father in the Great Chamberlainship in 1968, and his grandfather as Earl in 1979. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Lady Victoria Weld-Forester - (?)
She died in 1966. Her son by her first husband, Sir Edward Legge-Bourke, succeeded to her share, and died in 1973. His son William Legge-Bourke was born in 1939, and is presumably still alive. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As to the Baroness Willoughby de Eresby, and her quarter of the Great Chamberlainship, does she have any children, or will her share descend to her cousin, Sir George Aird, 4th Bt, and his heirs? john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lady Willoughby de Eresby is childless at 69;there being issue of both her aunts,her fourth will divide into eighths,the junior likely passing to Sir George John Aird and his line and the senior to her other cousin,Carola Eloise Philippi,and then to her son by her first marriage,Capt. Sebastian St. Maur Miller.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

(My source, just to note, is [1]. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Who was the other sister of the 3rd Earl of Ancaster? I have only found the mother of the 4th Baronet Aird.
VM 07:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Will Lorraine Wilson really be Lord Great Chamberlain under the next monarch, although she's female and a commoner (Is it right to suppose that she will get a title when taking the office or could she even sit in the house of lords without? What sort of title could it be?)- The article should have a remark about these questions, because it could become relevant in the not so far future.. (Xerxes M.F)

There were similar cases in the past, where a female was the holder of that part that executes the office, but her husband or eldest son was Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain. And I think if that male person holds no peerage title a title will be granted similar to the barony of Gwydir, so either a life barony or a hereditary barony; but I think it will be rather a life peerage than an hereditary title.
VM 08:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
VM - is it impossible for a woman to exercise the office? Isn't it more likely at this point that Ms. Wilson will herself be granted a title and exercise the office herself? Previously, women couldn't sit in the house of lords, but now they can. john k 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Next question: If Lorraine Wilson dies before the next monarch and without issue (as it actually looks like; she's even not married..)who will then the be Lord Great Chamberlain, her sister or her husband? Or will it pass to the next in line to the Lord Great Chamberlainship? Xerxes M.F. 28.9.2006

[edit] Plural

Is the plural for this really "Lords Great Chamberlain"? I mean, for "Attorneys-General" and what-not, "attorney" is clearly the noun, and "general" an adjective describing it. But the main title here is "Chamberlain". IN fact, the title is really simply the "Great Chamberlain", with the lord haphazardly added in because at some point someone decided that a "Lord" needed to be added to the beginning of pretty much all offices. So, is this really correct? john 05:18, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with you here, John. I'd definitely say "Lord High Stewards", "Lord High Chancellors", "Lord High Treasurers", "Lord Great Chamberlains", "Lord High Constables" and "Lord High Admirals", since they are definitely primarily Stewards, Chancellors, Treasurers, etc. However, the other offices are more difficult. Is a Lord President of the Council a Lord who happens to be presiding over the Privy Council or a president of the Privy Council who is lordly? I'd probably be inclined to say the latter, but I'm not sure. Is a Lord Privy Seal a Seal? Surely not - he's a Lord who is in charge of the Privy Seal, so should more than one of them be Lords Privy Seal? It would make sense logically, but might look out of place with the others. Then of course you have the Lords of the Admiralty, who were styled together as the "Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty", which seems to be the result of indecision over whether they were Lords or Commissioners (the same still presumably applies to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury). If we were to take these as the basis of general pluralisation, as they are the only ones of whom there are ever more than one (there would be no official reference to more than one Lord High Chancellor, for instance, because there's only ever one of them), then we would have Lords High Chancellors and Lords Great Chamberlains. Oh, it's all too complicated - the only way to know definitively is probably to ask the Palace. Proteus 13:35, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...The Lord Privy Seal is really the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, isn't he? So Lords Keepers of the Privy Seal? I think that could be abbreviated as Lords Privy Seal. Certainly "Lord Privy Seals" sounds wrong. I'm wary of the Lord part, since it's generally been added on later. It used to be you'd simply have the President of the Privy Council, the Keeper of the Privy Seal, the High Chancellor, the High Steward, the Marshal, the High constable, the Steward of the Household, the Commissioners of the Treasury and the Admiralty, and so on. The "Lord" started out as simply an honorific. Asking the palace always seems good...too bad they don't have an email address, or anything...and they probably wouldn't actually know, anyway. "Lords High Chancellors" certainly sounds bizarre. (To note, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has a list of "Lord Chancellors", but there are numerous Hansard's references to "Lords Chancellor". john 19:14, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My original impression was that the honorific gets a plural. For instance, I thought that one would write, if there were two persons named Smith, "Messrs Smith," rather than "Mr Smiths". And just a couple of questions: firstly, is it known that Lady Alexandra Palmer was living until 1955? Secondly, during the times when the earldom of Oxford was forfeit, was there anyone who performed the functions of the LGC? -- Emsworth 20:17, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

As to the first question, a posting on ATR from Louis Epstein, who is, while utterly insane, very knowledgeable about the peerage, is the source for Lady Alexandra Palmer dying in 1955. Burkes's entry on the Barons Carrington would probably have the details, though - I'm in the library, so I'll go check. I don't know about the second question, but presumably it was given to somebody else (and, in fact, it's rather likely that many Earls of Oxford did not actually exercise the dignity). Neither Complete Peerage nor Haydn's Book of Dignities gives the full list, however. I shall look into this further, but I'm not sure where to look. john 22:23, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, according to Mr Epstein, "Burke's does not explore her [Lady Alexandra Palmer's] issue." -- Emsworth 22:26, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yep...it does not (or, at least, Burke's peerage does not). It does confirm 1955 as her year of death, however. I will now go check out Burke's Landed Gentry to see if, perhaps, Colonel Palmer is among the families listed there. john 22:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
While you're there, would you mind checking if the 5th Baron Nunburnholme's daughters are listed?
Yeah, I'll look. As to the issue of Lady Alexandra Palmer, it is in the Landed Gentry (which, unfortunately, is from 1972):
Lady Alexandra Palmer married Colonel William Llewellen Palmer in 1910. They had four sons: Peter Michael George Llewellen Palmer (b.1911), who was k.i.a. in WWII in 1942; Anthony William Allen Llewellen Palmer (b.1912), who married the Hon. Veronica Saumarez in 1945, and seems to have been childless (don't know if he's still alive - would be quite old); Julian Llewellen Palmer (b.1914, k.i.a.1941); and (Charles) Timothy Llewellen Palmer (b.1917), who married Cynthia Lindsay Menzies and had, as of 1972, three sons - Julian Neil (b.1963), Charles Anthony (b.1967), and another (b.1971), and one daughter, Alexandra Joan (b.1964). More information is available here: [2], It would seem that Anthony died childless in 1990. Timothy seems to have died at some point as well, and Julian died unexpectedly in 2002, leaving a son Nicholas. So, we can tentatively say that this share was held by Anthony Llewellen Palmer from 1955 to 1990, possibly by Timothy for some of the period between 1990 and 2002, then by Julian until his death in 2002, and finally by Nicholas. Whoo...on to the Nunburnholme's... (have you accounted for all the Dartmouth coheirs, by the way?) john 22:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay...It is the 4th Baron Nunburnholme whose daughters succeeded to his shares. The 4th Baron died in 1998. His daughters, according to the 1999 Burke's, are Lorraine Mary Charmiane Nicole (b.1959); Tatiana Ines Alexandra (b.1960), m.1988 Nigel L. Dent, and has two sons, Frederick, and Harry Barnaby Nigel; Ines Monica (b.1963), m.1988 Anthony Richard Leslie Garton and has one son, Tristan John Leslie; and Ysabel (b.1963). The 5th Baron Nunburnholme was the brother of the 4th Baron, and is also dead, succeeded by his son. But the 6th Baron does not have a share in the Great Chamberlainship. john 23:07, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alright, as to Dartmouth, we have the 7th Earl and Lady Ruperta Wynn-Carington, have...

  1. Lady Mary Findlay (1908-2003)-Commander Jonathan Findlay (b.1933)
  2. Lady Elizabeth Basset (1908-2000)-Bryan Basset (b.1932)
  3. Lady Diana Matthews (1910-1970)-James Hamilton-Russell, her son by her first marriage (b.1938)
  4. Lady Barbara Kwiatkowski (b.1916, seemingly alive)-Jan Kwiatkowski is her son and heir-apparent (b.1945)
  5. Josceline, Marchioness of Donegall (b.1918, seemingly still alive)-Earl of Belfast is her heir-apparent.

Hey, have we got pretty much all of it taken care of, then? 130.91.119.213 23:19, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to Thepeerage.com, Lady Donegall died in 1995. It would seem, then, that all is well, except for the death date of Timothy Palmer. -- Emsworth 23:24, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

A change: Marjorie, Baroness Nunburnholme died in 1953, not in 1968. (My source for the former was, I think, Louis Epstien. My source for 1953 was Cambridge -- Emsworth 00:24, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

My source is both Debrett's AND Burke's,agreeing on the year and the latter giving specific date she died...I doubt they made this up.--Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

For the purposes of the table: is it known who died first, David Viscount Bury, or the 5th Marquess of Cholmondeley? Both died in 1968; sources suggest that Lord Bury died on 8 November, but I don't know about Lord Cholmondeley. It would seem, however, more likely that Lord Cholmondeley died earlier, because Lord Bury died in the later part of the year. -- Emsworth 00:37, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

The 5th Marquess died on 16 september, according to [3]. john 00:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The future Lady Donegall has been shown on the table as Lady Templemore. I would suggest that the highest title be used throughout, so that the reader is not confused as to whether the two are the same or not- the matter is confusing enough already. -- Emsworth 01:21, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

She did not become Marchioness of Donegall until 1975. I think the title which the highest title held for the period under discussion should be used, although this may be confusing. john 01:39, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very well. We'll have to change Lord Linconshire, who was previously Lord Carrington. Furthermore, we have the Dowager Ladies Aveland and Cholmondeley. Separately, I forsee a problem at 1990. Firstly, we may not know when Timothy Palmer died. Secondly, the same problem that occurred in 1968 might happen again. Both the 6th Marquess of Cholmondeley and Anthony Palmer died in 1990. -- Emsworth 01:41, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes...and we don't know when Mr. Palmer died, and I've no idea when, in that year, he died. Perhaps someone has access to a more recent edition of Burke's Landed Gentry than I, and can provide this information. ETA: Perhaps you're right about just using the highest title. It would certainly be simpler. john 01:43, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Timothy Palmer died February 1, 1978. --Wik 20:51, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Earl of Oxford contends that the 13th Earl was forfeit in 1485- was his title of LGC not also taken away? -- Emsworth 01:25, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...he was forfeit in 1475, and restored in 1485. (The 13th Earl was a leading Lancastrian, and led the Earl of Richmond's army at Bosworth Field). john 01:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another correction needed

The genealogy in Burke's for the old Earls of Oxford makes clear that the 1626 change was the point at which the heirs in the female line got the office,not the more distant male heir as stated in the article.(The male line heirs were the Veres,who died out with the 20th Earl.It seems to have gone to the 17th Earl's younger sister rather than his elder sister or his daughters(all of whom have issue surviving to this day).But,if it had gone to heirs general in the first place the heir of line of Aubrey de Vere temp Henry I is the Duke of Northumberland! (Not Lady Strange,who claims to be his heir in her Debrett's entry).--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

[edit] Benefits of the Office?

As the rights to the office become more diluted with passing generations (we now have persons with a 1/100th claim), I wonder if there is a salary or other benefit (other than prestige) attached to the office that is shared-out each year? I guess I'm asking why holders of miniscule shares bother keeping them instead of waiving them in favor of a more senior claimant. If, say, the right to an invitation to the next coronation comes with each tiny claim on the office, I can see why a 1% holder would cling on, but absent some perquisite like that, I wonder if there is any advantage to the minor claimants to hang on. --StanZegel (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not shared out each year. The person who possesses it possesses it for an entire reign. So the Marquess of Cholmondeley will hold it through the reign of Elizabeth II. Then it will go to Lorraine Wilson or her heir for the next reign, then to Lord Cholmondeley or his heir for the next reign after that, then to Lady Willoughby de Eresby or her heir for the next reign after that, then to Julian Palmer or his heir for the reign after that, and so forth. Every other reign it goes to the Cholmondeley heir, because he has a 50% share. Half of the reigns when it doesn't go to the Cholmondeley, it goes to Willoughby de Eresby, due to her 25% share. And so forth. john k 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the rotation, but I'm wondering if there are any perks that make an undivided interest in the office to be valuable. Thus while someone else may be the incumbent during a reign, if there were a salary it is possible that the salary may be shared.
Not that I'm aware of. All the people with a non-exercising share possess is the right to transmit their share and possibly exercise it in a future reign. The whole thing is completely ridiculous. I hope the Committee of Privileges is proud of themselves about the ridiculous mess they created. Also, as far as I understand it, the various shares are effectively entailed, so the owner of a 1% share can't sell out. john k 02:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)