I wish you wouldn’t do this.
After Patrick’s death, it was amusing just how eager both Cora & Violet were to break the entail. If it would impoverish the next Lord Grantham–so what? Were they really so careless of that nobility thing as long as Cora & her girls had the big bucks? We don’t know much about Violet’s past; I’m sure she was allowed to marry into the family because she had a good dowry (if not the bonanza that Cora offered)–and, of course, could provide an heir and a spare. Although she apparently had one son & a daughter. Does Violet’s famous wit include some bitterness at a marriage that might not have been that great?
Although we know Cora & her Lord fell in love–& he really wants the title & estate to remain after him–does Cora resent exchanging her fortune for a title? Would she really take her money & run after his death & not care about what happened to the old place? We know that she & Violet had a difficult relationship–the prospect of a “stranger” inheriting brought them together. After all, Cora didn’t provide even one proper heir. (I know it wasn’t her “fault”–for all we know, the Grantham men have low sperm counts.)
One interesting discussion we missed by skipping the first two years of the War: who, really is next in line after Matthew? I’m quite sure it’s known. They’d come to like Matthew & probably hoped he & Mary might still get together. Still, if the title went extinct, I’m sure Cora could get her hands back on “her” money…
Oh, well. It’s a very pretty show…
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
It’s not clear when the Crawleys were raised to the peerage; the real Earldom of Grantham was created in 1698 and went extinct in 1754.
[/QUOTE]
I was actually wondering if it’s necessary for the heir to be a descendant of an Earl of Grantham or just of the same lineage. If it’s the former then that would put it back to at least Robert and Matthew’s great-great-grandfather. Assuming Robert is around 50 in 1918 and an average age of 25 when the heir was born that would mean the title’s been held by a Crawley since at least the late 18th century. If it’s “closest Crawley line lineage” then it could end up being a relative who is currently a pig farmer in Arkansas but happens to be the son-of-a-son-of-a-son-of-a-son-of-a-son-of-a-son-of-a-(etc.) Plantaganet era sex criminal who happened to be named Crawley and also a male line ancestor of the Earl.
I don’t blame her. If you inherited megabucks would you want the money to bypass your children in favor not just of in-laws but in-laws your husband doesn’t even know? (Third cousin means that Matthew and the Earl descend from the same great-great-grandfather [and presumably great-great-grandmother, but not at all necessarily]; considering that g-g-grandfather puts you back into the U.S. Civil War era and families tended to be large, most of us probably have hundreds if not thousands of third cousins.)
I’m curious if there really were entails that strict. Even the monarchy was allowed to pass to daughters if there were no sons available, hard to imagine why anybody would be so strict on a county.
The Gold Standard of Titled Aristocrat/Rich American marriages was probably the disastrous union of Charles Spencer-Churchill, [heir to the] Duke of Marlboro, and Consuelo Vanderbilt. Her mother forced her into the marriage; she didn’t like him, contemplated suicide before the wedding, [per Consuelo] her mother threatened to have the man she really did love killed if she didn’t behave, and once they were married she was looked down on by his family.
Alva Vanderbilt got a duchess crown for her daughter, which to her was worth a $2.5 million dowry (easily between $50 million-$100 million in 2012 USD) plus the renovation of Blenheim Palace for another million and lots of expensive gifts over the next few years. (Alva was a penniless southern belle from Alabama who apparently had some real issues with being ‘good enough for society’, which is odd since not long after arranging her daughter’s marriage she divorced her own husband and remarried.) Consuelo had the heir and the spare but came to hate her husband even more after they married than before; she and the Duke both had affairs, they separated not long after their youngest child was born, and finally divorced around 1921, which would be easy to work into Downton.
Moneywise the Duke was the winner in the divorce, though Consuelo didn’t much care as by then her mother had actually repented a bit and felt really guilty about the match and gave her enough to live very comfortably. Consuelo also had a lot more coming her way when her parents died. She had a much happier second marriage.
(Evidently the Duke and the Duchess were both pretty much crap as parents, opting for the usual “Such a pity there is not a boarding school that accepts newborns” route.)
I think it might be interesting to learn some of Cora’s background, including whether she has much family left in America and whether her family is still mega-rich.
He’d pretty much have to be a descendant of the original earl. The letters patent creating the peerage usually specify “lawfully begotten heirs male of his body”. Sometimes when the person being raised to the peerage didn’t have any sons language was included including his heirs general (ie daughters) and their heirs male or even his brothers and their heirs male, but his was the exception not the rule.
You’re confusing the entail with the peerage. The entail is just a legal mechanism which binds real estate to a title, and it was apparently a private contract between Miss Cora ______ and her father-in-law. It’s true that most peerages can only be inheirted through the male line even though the throne can pass to women. The oldest English baronies can be inheirited by women, but later grants were restrict to heirs male.
And just in case you’re not confused enough yet let’s say that the Earl of Grantham also holds one of those ancient baronies. Lord Grantham dies without a son, even if Matthew lived to inheired the Earldom he wouldn’t get the barony. Lord Granthams daughters would. All of them, they’d each inheirit an equal claim on the Barony of Crawley, which means none of them would actually get to be Baroness Crawley. The title would go into abeyance until the Crown terminated the abeyance in favour of one of the they sisters (or their heirs). Which might not happen for decades or centuries after they all died.
Cora’s mentioned various relatives in the States, last season she suggested sending Lady Mary to stay with them in New York to find a husband. It think it’s safe to say they still have money. It’d be nice if any of them made an appearance in series 3. Which is set in the 1920s. Now what big even happened at the end of the '20s that might change that? :smack:
Come on, wouldn’t that be a nice slice of contrast between the Crawley girls’ lives?
So… my husband and I, having gobbled up all of Downton Abbey through means best left unsaid, were pining for more costumed Brits. We’ve moved on (or back) to “Lark Rise to Candleford”, to enjoy more Brendan Coyle.
Sir Michael Lindsay-Hogg is a TV and music producer and 5th Baronet of the Lindsay-Hogg Baronetcy (est. 1905). I know that baronet is the bottom rung of the British aristocracy (Do Men Ever Visit Boston?/Duke Marquis Earl Viscount Baronet), but, let’s assume he was Earl of Hogg instead.
Michael Lindsay-Hogg inherited his father’s title when his father, the 4th Baronet (and husband of M L-H’s mother, Geraldine Fitzgerald) died quite a few years ago. Last year he learned through DNA testing what he’d suspected for decades: his biological father was actually his mother’s lover in the late 1930s, actor/producer/spokesperson/etc., Orson Welles, whom he much resembles (picture, picture as a youth).
I don’t believe Michael Lindsay-Hogg has any brothers, but if he did, and if it was a duchy or other major title, I wonder if they could successfully sue him for the title. The DNA test proved his biological paternity, but his mother’s-husband, though he didn’t have much relationship with him, did acknowledge him as his son, and it has to have come up before that the titular heir to a title is of dubious birth. I wonder who the court would side with.
I somehow doubt that DNA tests would be part of the equation, because there was no such thing when such titles were created. The keys, so far as I know, is that the heir is born to a lawful wife and that the father recognizes the child as a legitimate heir. If the father never repudiated the heir, I don’t think his position can be disturbed.
There is precedent for the female heirs of the first holder to be given a peerage either through letters patent (as in Louis Mountbatten’s case) or through an Act of Parliament, as in the case of the Dukes of Marlborough, where if memory serves both the second and third holders were Duchesses in their own right. Hence the Spencer-Churchill family name (Lord Randoph Churhcill the third son of one Duke dropped the “Spencer” from his surname, a practice which his son Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill continued, though IIRC that family has continued to employ Spencer as a middle name).
Furthermore if Earl of Grantham was created for someone from an already titled family (a second son of a peer) for instance, it could become subsumed into the earlier title. An example of this in reverse is the Dukes of Wellington a title created for a third son which now has as subsidiary titles all of those owned by the father and brother of Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke.
Are the grounds of most English great houses as plain as Highclere’s? There’s no formal garden, just lawn. (Pic.)
Speaking of recognizing the actors from previous work, I loved Penelope Wilton (Isobel) as MP/PM Harriet Jones on several episodes of Doctor Who. (I still think she made the right decision when she had Torchwood blast the aliens, even though it caused the Doctor to topple her administration.)
Presumably, it’s all about income/staff, which will obv. vary dramatically through the decades and centuries - right now, one bloke sitting on a motorised lawn mover can keep that neatly trimmed in a jiffy. I guess it also affords decent sight lines for opening sequences and - one of Downham’s favourite shots - through the grounds, a CAR ARRIVING!
Upstairs Downstairs (the 1970s original, not the ill-advised new remake) and *The Duchess of Duke Street *are both on DVD, and are actually both better-scripted, deeper and more leisurely-paced than Downton Abbey. Both take place in 1900-30 England, look fabulous, and have breath-taking writing and (usually) terrific acting.
We have the original Upstairs, Downstairs as that was also my suggestion to the hubby for our next series. So far, we’ve only watched the first episode. That opening episode was pretty bad, but I seem to recall the show was much better than that. Was it a bit wobbly for the first bit until it found its feet, so to speak? I told him it has to get better, because I fondly remember watching it with my mother when I was a wee lass in the 70s. We will give it another try, I’m sure, after running through Lark Rise.
I hadn’t considered the Duchess of Duke Street, having only heard the title, so that’s a suggestion we’ll check out—thank you!
It did take *Upstairs Downstairs *half a season, maybe, to find its feet–and a few of the earliest episodes are duds (skip “The Swedish Tiger,” everyone agrees that one was a mistake). And it is slower, more like a novel, than zippy newer shows, which I like. There was also a tech strike during the first season, so it looks like cheap “live” TV. But the first-season episodes “Magic Casements” and “I Dies from Love” are two of the best hours of TV you’ll ever see.
I love Duchess, too: for one thing, Gemma Jones is a delight (I still think she should have played Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady). It’s the real-life story of Edwardian hotel keeper Rose Lewis and, again, the supporting cast is terrific.
Also, both series have *gorgeous *clothes! The only thing *Upstairs Downstairs * fell down on was the eyebrows–all the actresses have skinny early-70s meth-whore brows, whereas Edwardian women did *not *pluck.
I don’t have any knowledge or understanding of the precedent involved in English peerages, but it would seem that if the original award included the " . . . of his body" language listed above then a DNA test would be relevant.
The concept of an “heir of the body” existed centuries before DNA tests existed. Establishing whether someone is an heir of the body must be possible without resorting to DNA testing, and you would use the same methods as have been used historically – the marital status of the mother and the acknowledgement of the father. If the father doesn’t question paternity, then no one else can.
The Peers Themselves have discussed DNA testing–in order to allow illegitimate sons assume titles:
To bring this back to Downton Abbey, Julian Fellowes is now Julian Alexander Kitchener-Fellowes, Baron Fellowes of West Stafford, DL. He is merely a Life Peer, but he added the “Kitchener-” because his wife is the niece of the late Henry Kitchener, 3rd Earl Kitchener. The Earl died without a male heir so the title has gone extinct. If the title could go through the female line, Lord Julian’s son could look forward to being an Earl…
That very modern of them. And, I’m sure, far more urgent than discussing the abolition of their own Chamber.
Also fashion. Grounds are “easy” to change and estates that once had sunken gardens and formal paths can find themselves a few years later with bowling greens or natural scenery.
Nitpick: The “B” in that mnemonic device actually stands for “Baron”. While baronetcies are hereditary, baronets aren’t really aristocrats. Baronets didn’t sit in the House of Lords, and are addressed as “Sir” rather than “Lord”.