PEERAGE
Last updated 19/07/2014
Date Rank Order Name Born Died  Age
LEICESTER OF HOLKHAM
12 Aug 1837 E 1 Thomas William Coke 6 May 1754 30 Jun 1842 88
Created Viscount Coke and Earl of
Leicester of Holkham 12 Aug 1837
MP for Norfolk 1776-1784, 1790-1807 and
1807-1832, and Derbyshire 1806-1807.
30 Jun 1842 2 Thomas William Coke 26 Dec 1822 24 Jan 1909 86
Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1846-1906.  KG 1873
24 Jan 1909 3 Thomas William Coke 20 Jul 1848 19 Nov 1941 93
Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1906-1929
19 Nov 1941 4 Thomas William Coke 9 Jul 1880 21 Aug 1949 69
Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1944-1949
21 Aug 1949 5 Thomas William Edward Coke 16 May 1908 3 Sep 1976 68
3 Sep 1976 6 Anthony Louis Lovel Coke 11 Sep 1909 19 Jun 1994 84
19 Jun 1994 7 Edward Douglas Coke 6 May 1936
LEIGH
1 Jul 1643 B 1 Sir Thomas Leigh,2nd baronet 1595 24 Feb 1672 76
Created Baron Leigh 1 Jul 1643
24 Feb 1672 2 Thomas Leigh 17 Jun 1652 16 Nov 1710 58
16 Nov 1710 3 Edward Leigh 13 Jan 1684 9 Mar 1738 54
9 Mar 1738 4 Thomas Leigh 29 Apr 1713 30 Nov 1749 36
30 Nov 1749 5 Edward Leigh 1 Mar 1742 4 Jun 1786 44
to     Peerage extinct on his death
4 Jun 1786
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
11 May 1839 B 1 Chandos Leigh 27 Jun 1791 27 Sep 1850 59
Created Baron Leigh 11 May 1839
For further information on the Leigh peerage
claim, see the note at the foot of this page.
27 Sep 1850 2 William Henry Leigh 17 Jan 1824 21 Oct 1905 81
Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1856-1905.
PC 1895
21 Oct 1905 3 Francis Dudley Leigh 30 Jul 1855 16 May 1938 82
Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1921-1938
16 May 1938 4 Rupert William Dudley Leigh 14 Mar 1908 24 Jun 1979 71
24 Jun 1979 5 John Piers Leigh 11 Sep 1935 16 Sep 2003 68
16 Sep 2003 6 Christopher Dudley Piers Leigh 20 Oct 1960
LEIGH OF HURLEY
16 Sep 2013 B[L] 1 Howard Darryl Leigh 3 Apr 1959
Created Baron Leigh of Hurley for life
16 Sep 2013
LEIGHTON
24 Jan 1896 B 1 Sir Frederic Leighton,1st baronet 3 Dec 1830 25 Jan 1896 65
to     Created Baron Leighton 24 Jan 1896
25 Jan 1896 President of the Royal Academy 1878-1896
Peerage extinct on his death (the shortest-
lived peerage on record)
LEIGHTON OF ST.MELLONS
25 Jan 1962 B 1 George Leighton Seager 11 Jan 1896 17 Oct 1963 67
Created Baron Leighton of St.Mellons
25 Jan 1962
17 Oct 1963 2 John Leighton Seager 11 Jan 1922 28 Apr 1998 76
28 Apr 1998 3 Robert William Henry Leighton Seager 28 Sep 1955
LEINSTER
3 Mar 1646 E[I] 1 Robert Cholmondeley 26 Jun 1584 2 Oct 1659 75
to         Created Viscount Cholmondeley [I]
2 Oct 1659 2 Jul 1628,Baron Cholmondeley
1 Sep 1648 and Earl of Leinster
3 Mar 1646
Peerages extinct on his death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
3 Mar 1691 D[I] 1 Meinhardt Schomberg 5 Jul 1719
to     Created Baron Tara,Earl of Bangor
5 Jul 1719 and Duke of Leinster 3 Mar 1691
He succeeded to the Dukedom of Schomberg
(qv) in 1693
Peerage extinct on his death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
11 Sep 1721 E[L] 1 Charlotte Sophia Kielmansegge c 1673 20 Apr 1725
to     Created Countess of Leinster for life
20 Apr 1725 11 Sep 1721
Mistress of George I
She was later (1722) created Baroness of Brentford
and Countess of Darlington (qqv). All peerages
became extinct on her death.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    
26 Nov 1766 D[I] 1 James FitzGerald,20th Earl of Kildare 29 May 1722 19 Nov 1773 51
Created Viscount Leinster 21 Feb 1747,
Earl of Offaly and Marquess of
Kildare 3 Mar 1761 and Duke of 
Leinster 26 Nov 1766
PC [I] 1746
For information on his 5th son Edward,see the
note at the foot of this page
19 Nov 1773 2 William Robert FitzGerald 13 Mar 1749 20 Oct 1804 55
PC [I] 1777  KP 1783
20 Oct 1804 3 Augustus Frederick FitzGerald 21 Aug 1791 10 Oct 1874 83
Lord Lieutenant Kildare 1831-1874.  PC [I] 1831
PC 1831
10 Oct 1874 4 Charles William FitzGerald 30 Mar 1819 10 Feb 1887 67
Created Baron Kildare 3 May 1870
MP for Kildare 1847-1852.  PC [I] 1879
10 Feb 1887 5 Gerald FitzGerald 16 Aug 1851 1 Dec 1893 42
PC [I] 1888. Lord Lieutenant Kildare 1892-1893
1 Dec 1893 6 Maurice FitzGerald 1 Mar 1887 4 Feb 1922 34
4 Feb 1922 7 Edward FitzGerald 6 May 1892 8 Mar 1976 83
For further information on this peer, see the note
at the foot of this page.
8 Mar 1976 8 Gerald FitzGerald 27 May 1914 3 Dec 2004 90
3 Dec 2004 9 Maurice FitzGerald 7 Apr 1948
LEITCH
7 Jun 2004 B[L] 1 Alexander Park Leitch 20 Oct 1947
Created Baron Leitch for life 7 Jun 2004
LEITH OF FYVIE
18 Dec 1905 B 1 Alexander John Forbes-Leith 6 Aug 1847 14 Nov 1925 78
to     Created Baron Leith of Fyvie 18 Dec 1905
14 Nov 1925 Peerage extinct on his death
LEITRIM
30 Apr 1583 B[I] 1 John de Burgh c 1557 11 Nov 1583
Created Baron Leitrim 30 Apr 1583
11 Nov 1583 2 John de Burgh c 1600
to     He was attainted and the peerage forfeited
c 1600
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
6 Oct 1795 E[I] 1 Robert Clements 25 Nov 1732 27 Jul 1804 71
Created Baron Leitrim 11 Oct 1783,
Viscount Leitrim 20 Dec 1793 and
Earl of Leitrim 6 Oct 1795
PC [I] 1802
27 Jul 1804 2 Nathaniel Clements 9 May 1768 31 Dec 1854 86
Created Baron Clements 20 Jun 1831
MP for Leitrim 1800-1804. Lord Lieutenant
Leitrim 1831-1854  KP 1834. PC [I] 1834
31 Dec 1854 3 William Sydney Clements 17 Oct 1806 2 Apr 1878 71
MP for Leitrim 1839-1847.
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of this page.
2 Apr 1878 4 Robert Bermingham Clements 5 Mar 1847 5 Apr 1892 45
5 Apr 1892 5 Charles Clements 23 Jun 1879 9 Jun 1952 72
to     Lord Lieutenant Londonderry City 1904-1921
9 Jun 1952 Peerages extinct [or possibly dormant] on his death
For information on the disappearance of the 
Earl's younger brother and heir presumptive,see
note at the foot of this page
LENNOX
c 1180 E[S] 1 David of Scotland
to     Created Earl of Lennox c 1180
c 1184 He probably resigned the peerage c 1184
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
c 1184 E[S] 1 Alwyn c 1200
Created Earl of Lennox c 1184
c 1200 2 Alwyn c 1224
c 1224 3 Maldwin c 1260
c 1260 4 Malcolm c 1291
c 1291 5 Malcolm 19 Jul 1333
19 Jul 1333 6 Donald 1373
1373 7 Margaret de Faslane
She resigned the peerage in favor of -
1385 8 Duncan c 1350 25 May 1425
25 May 1425 9 Isabel Stewart 1459
to     On her death the peerage became dormant
1459
1473 10 John Stuart 1495
1495 11 Matthew Stuart 9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513 12 John Stuart 4 Sep 1526
4 Sep 1526 13 Matthew Stuart 21 Sep 1516 4 Sep 1571 54
4 Sep 1571 14 James Stuart
He had previously succeeded to the throne
as James VI of Scotland in 1567
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
18 Apr 1572 E[S] 1 Charles Stuart 1556 1576 20
to     Created Lord Darnley and Earl of
1576 Lennox 18 Apr 1572
Peerages extinct on his death
For information about his daughter,Arabella,
see the note at the foot of this page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
16 Jun 1578 E[S] 1 Robert Stuart c 1515 29 Mar 1586
to     Created Lord Darnley and Earl of 
1580 Lennox 16 Jun 1578
He resigned the peerages in 1580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
5 Aug 1581 D[S] 1 Esme Stuart c 1542 26 May 1583
Created Lord Darnley,Aubigny and
Dalkeith and Earl of Lennox 5 Mar 1580
and Lord Aubigny,Dalkeith,Torboltoun
and Aberdour,Earl of Darnley and 
Duke of Lennox 5 Aug 1581
26 May 1583 2 Ludovic Stuart 29 Sep 1574 16 Feb 1624 49
Created Baron of Setrington and Earl 
of Richmond 6 Oct 1613, and Earl of
Newcastle upon Tyne and Duke of
Richmond 17 May 1623
KG 1603
16 Feb 1624 3 Esme Stuart 1579 30 Jul 1624 45
Created Baron Stuart of Leighton
Bromswold and Earl of March 
7 Jun 1619
Lord Lieutenant Haddington 1612. KG 1624
30 Jul 1624 4 James Stuart,1st Duke of Richmond 6 Apr 1612 30 Mar 1655 42
30 Mar 1655 5 Esme Stuart,2nd Duke of Richmond 2 Nov 1649 10 Aug 1660 10
10 Aug 1660 6 Charles Stuart,3rd Duke of Richmond 7 Mar 1640 12 Dec 1672 32
to     Peerages extinct on his death
12 Dec 1672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
9 Aug 1675 D 1 Charles Lennox 29 Jul 1672 27 May 1723 50
Created Baron Setrington,Earl of 
March and Duke of Richmond 9 Aug 
1675 and Lord of Torboltoun,Earl of
Darnley and Duke of Lennox 9 Sep 1675
See "Richmond"
LEOMINSTER
12 Apr 1692 B 1 Sir William Fermor,2nd baronet 3 Aug 1648 7 Dec 1711 63
Created Baron Leominster 12 Apr 1692
MP for Northampton 1670-1679
7 Dec 1711 2 Thomas Fermor 23 Mar 1698 8 Jul 1753 55
He was created Earl of Pomfret (qv) in 1721
with which title this peerage then merged
LEONARD
2 May 1978 B[L] 1 John Denis Leonard 19 Oct 1909 17 Jul 1983 73
to     Created Baron Leonard for life 2 May 1978
17 Jul 1983 Peerage extinct on his death
LESLIE
1445 B[S] 1 George Leslie c 1490
Created Lord Leslie 1445 and Earl of
Rothes 1457
See "Rothes"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
29 May 1680 E[S] 1 John Leslie,7th Earl of Rothes 1630 27 Jul 1681 51
to     Created Lord Auchmoutie and 
27 Jul 1681 Caskieberry,Viscount of Lugtoun,Earl
of Leslie,Marquess of Ballinbrieich
and Duke of Rothes
Peerage extinct on his death
LESTER OF HERNE HILL
13 Oct 1993 B[L] 1 Anthony Paul Lester 3 Jul 1936
Created Baron Lester of Herne Hill for life
13 Oct 1993
LESTOR OF ECCLES
4 Jun 1997 B[L] 1 Joan Lestor 13 Nov 1931 27 Mar 1998 66
to     Created Baroness Lestor of Eccles for life
27 Mar 1998 4 Jun 1997
MP for Eton and Slough 1966-1983 and
Eccles 1987-1997
Peerage extinct on her death
LEVEN
11 Oct 1641 E[S] 1 Alexander Leslie c 1580 4 Apr 1661
Created Lord Balgonie and Earl of 
Leven 11 Oct 1641
4 Apr 1661 2 Alexander Leslie c 1637 15 Jul 1664
15 Jul 1664 3 Margaret Montgomery 6 Nov 1674
6 Nov 1674 4 Catherine Leslie c 1663 21 Jan 1676
to     On her death the peerage became dormant
21 Jan 1676
1681 5 David Leslie 5 May 1660 6 Jun 1728 68
He succeeded as 2nd Earl of Melville in 1707
since which time the titles have remained united
6 Jun 1728 6 David Leslie  (also 3rd Earl of Melville) 17 Dec 1717 Jun 1729 11
Jun 1729 7 Alexander Leslie  (also 4th Earl of Melville) c 1699 2 Sep 1754
2 Sep 1754 8 David Leslie  (also 5th Earl of Melville) 4 Mar 1722 9 Jun 1802 80
9 Jun 1802 9 Alexander Leslie-Melville  (also 6th Earl of Melville) 7 Nov 1749 22 Feb 1820 70
22 Feb 1820 10 David Leslie-Melville  (also 7th Earl of Melville) 22 Jun 1785 8 Oct 1860 75
8 Oct 1860 11 John Thornton Leslie-Melville  (also 8th Earl of
Melville) 18 Dec 1786 16 Sep 1876 89
16 Sep 1876 12 Alexander Leslie-Melville  (also 9th Earl of Melville) 11 Jan 1817 22 Oct 1889 72
22 Oct 1889 13 Ronald Ruthven Leslie-Melville  (also 10th Earl
of Melville) 19 Dec 1835 21 Aug 1906 70
PC 1902  KT 1905
21 Aug 1906 14 John David Leslie-Melville  (also 11th Earl of 
Melville) 5 Apr 1886 11 Jun 1913 27
11 Jun 1913 15 Archibald Alexander Leslie-Melville  (also 12th
Earl of Melville) 6 Aug 1890 15 Jan 1947 56
Lord Lieutenant Nairnshire 1935-1947
KT 1934
15 Jan 1947 16 Alexander Robert Leslie-Melville  (also 13th Earl
of Melville) 13 May 1924 7 Apr 2012 87
Lord Lieutenant Nairnshire 1969-1999
7 Apr 2012 17 Alexander Ian Leslie-Melville  (also 14th Earl
of Melville) 29 Nov 1984
LEVENE OF PORTSOKEN
22 Jul 1997 B[L] 1 Peter Keith Levene 8 Dec 1941
Created Baron Levene of Portsoken for life
22 Jul 1997
LEVER
10 Jul 1975 B[L] 1 Leslie Maurice Lever 29 Apr 1905 26 Jul 1977 72
to     Created Baron Lever for life 10 Jul 1975
26 Jul 1977 MP for Ardwick 1950-1970
Peerage extinct on his death
LEVER OF MANCHESTER
3 Jul 1979 B[L] 1 Harold Lever 15 Jan 1914 6 Aug 1995 81
to     Created Baron Lever of Manchester for life
6 Aug 1995 3 Jul 1979
MP for Manchester Exchange 1945-1950,
Cheetham 1950-1974 and Manchester
Central 1974-1979. Financial Secretary to
the Treasury 1967-1969. Paymaster General
1969-1970. Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster 1974-1979.  PC 1969
Peerage extinct on his death
LEVERHULME
27 Nov 1922 V 1 Sir William Hesketh Lever,1st baronet 19 Sep 1851 7 May 1925 73
Created Baron Leverhulme 21 Jun 1917
and Viscount Leverhulme 27 Nov 1922
MP for Wirral 1906-1909
For a discussion on what actually constitutes a
peerage title,see the note at the foot of this page
7 May 1925 2 William Hulme Lever 25 Mar 1888 27 May 1949 61
27 May 1949 3 Philip William Bryce Lever 1 Jul 1915 4 Jul 2000 85
to     Lord Lieutenant Cheshire 1949-1990. KG 1988
4 Jul 2000 Peerage extinct on his death
   
LEVESON
10 May 1833 B 1 Lord Granville Leveson-Gower,1st Viscount 12 Oct 1773 8 Jan 1846 72
Granville                 
Created Baron Leveson and Earl
Granville 10 May 1833
See "Granville"
LEVY
23 Sep 1997 B[L] 1 Michael Abraham Levy 11 Jul 1944
Created Baron Levy for life 23 Sep 1997
LEWES
14 Jan 1876 E 1 William Nevill,5th Earl of Abergavenny 16 Sep 1826 12 Dec 1915 89
Created Earl of Lewes and Marquess 
of Abergavenny 14 Jan 1876
See "Abergavenny"
LEWIN
19 Nov 1982 B[L] 1 Terence Thornton Lewin 19 Nov 1920 23 Jan 1999 78
to     Created Baron Lewin for life 19 Nov 1982
23 Jan 1999 Admiral of the Fleet 1979. KG 1983  Chief of
the Defence Staff 1979-1982
Peerage extinct on his death
LEWIS OF NEWNHAM
8 Feb 1989 B[L] 1 Jack Lewis 13 Feb 1928 17 Jul 2014 86
to     Created Baron Lewis of Newnham for life
17 Jul 2014 8 Feb 1989
Peerage extinct on his death
LEWISHAM
5 Sep 1711 V 1 William Legge,2nd Baron Dartmouth 14 Oct 1672 15 Dec 1750 78
Created Viscount Lewisham and Earl
of Dartmouth 5 Sep 1711
See "Dartmouth"
LEXDEN
23 Dec 2010 B[L] 1 Alistair Basil Cooke 20 Apr 1945
Created Baron Lexden for life 23 Dec 2010
LEXINTON
21 Nov 1645 B 1 Robert Sutton 13 Oct 1668
Created Baron Lexinton 21 Nov 1645
13 Oct 1668 2 Robert Sutton 6 Jan 1662 19 Sep 1723 61
to     PC 1692
19 Sep 1723 Peerage extinct on his death
LEY
31 Dec 1625 B 1 James Ley 1552 14 Mar 1629 76
Created Baron Ley 31 Dec 1625 and
Earl of Marlborough 5 Feb 1626
See "Marlborough"
LEYBURN
6 Feb 1299 B 1 William de Leyburn 1310
to     Summoned to Parliament as Lord
1310 Leyburn 6 Feb 1299
Peerage extinct on his death
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
21 Jun 1337 B 1 John de Leyburn 1384
to     Summoned to Parliament as Lord
1384 Leyburn 21 Jun 1337
Peerage extinct on his death
LICHFIELD
10 Dec 1645 E 1 Charles Stuart 7 Mar 1640 12 Dec 1672 32
to     Created Baron Stuart of Newbury and
12 Dec 1672 Earl of Lichfield 10 Dec 1645
He succeeded to the Dukedom of Richmond (qv)
in 1660 - peerages extinct 1672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
5 Jun 1674 E 1 Sir Edward Henry Lee,5th baronet c 1656 14 Jul 1716
Created Baron of Spelsbury,Viscount
Quarendon and Earl of the City of
Lichfield 5 Jun 1674
Lord Lieutenant Oxford 1687-1689
14 Jul 1716 2 George Henry Lee 12 Mar 1690 15 Feb 1743 52
15 Feb 1743 3 George Henry Lee 21 May 1718 17 Sep 1772 54
MP for Oxfordshire 1740-1743.  PC 1762
17 Sep 1772 4 Robert Lee 3 Jul 1706 4 Nov 1776 70
to     MP for Oxford 1754 and 1761-1768
4 Nov 1776 Peerage extinct on his death
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
15 Sep 1831 E 1 Thomas William Anson,2nd Viscount Anson 20 Oct 1795 18 Mar 1854 58
Created Earl of Lichfield 15 Sep 1831
MP for Yarmouth 1818. Postmaster General
1835-1841.  PC 1830
18 Mar 1854 2 Thomas George Anson 15 Aug 1825 7 Jan 1892 66
MP for Lichfield 1847-1854. Lord
Lieutenant Stafford 1863-1871
7 Jan 1892 3 Thomas Francis Anson 31 Jan 1856 29 Jul 1918 62
29 Jul 1918 4 Thomas Edward Anson 9 Dec 1883 14 Sep 1960 76
14 Sep 1960 5 Thomas Patrick John Anson 25 Apr 1939 11 Nov 2005 66
11 Nov 2005 6 Thomas William Robert Hugh Anson 19 Jul 1978
LIDDELL OF COATDYKE
7 Jul 2010 B[L] 1 Helen Lawrie Liddell 6 Dec 1950
Created Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke for
life 7 Jul 2010
MP for Monklands East 1994-1997 and Airdrie
and Shotts 1997-2005. Economic Secretary to
the Treasury 1997-1998. Secretary of State for
Scotland 2001-2003  PC 1998
LIDDLE
19 Jun 2010 B[L] 1 Roger John Liddle 14 Jun 1947
Created Baron Liddle for life 19 Jun 2010
LIFFORD
4 Jan 1781 V[I] 1 James Hewitt 28 Apr 1712 28 Apr 1789 77
Created Baron Lifford 9 Jan 1768 
and Viscount Lifford 4 Jan 1781
MP for Coventry 1761-1766. Lord 
Chancellor of Ireland 1768-1789. 
PC [I] 1768
28 Apr 1789 2 James Hewitt 27 Oct 1750 15 Apr 1830 79
15 Apr 1830 3 James Hewitt 29 Aug 1783 22 Apr 1855 71
22 Apr 1855 4 James Hewitt 31 Mar 1811 20 Nov 1887 76
20 Nov 1887 5 James Wilfrid Hewitt 12 Oct 1837 20 Mar 1913 75
20 Mar 1913 6 Archibald Robert Hewitt 14 Jan 1844 22 May 1925 81
22 May 1925 7 Evelyn James Hewitt 18 Dec 1880 5 Apr 1954 73
5 Apr 1954 8 Alan William Wingfield Hewitt 11 Dec 1900 6 Jan 1987 86
6 Jan 1987 9 Edward James Wingfield Hewitt 27 Jan 1949
LIGONIER
31 Dec 1757 V[I] 1 John Louis Ligonier 7 Nov 1680 28 Apr 1770 89
20 May 1762 V[I] 1 Created Viscount Ligonier 31 Dec 1757
27 Apr 1763 B 1 and 20 May 1762, Baron Ligonier
10 Sep 1766 E 1 27 Apr 1763 and Earl Ligonier 
to     10 Sep 1766
28 Apr 1770 MP for Bath 1748-1763.  PC 1749
Field Marshal 1757
On his death the Earldom,Viscountcy of
1757 and the Barony became extinct, whilst
the Viscountcy of 1762 passed to -
28 Apr 1770 2 Edward Ligonier 1740 14 Jun 1782 41
19 Jul 1776 E 1 Created Earl Ligonier 19 Jul 1776
to     Peerages extinct on his death
14 Jun 1782
LILFORD
26 Oct 1797 B 1 Thomas Powys 4 May 1743 26 Jan 1800 56
Created Baron Lilford 26 Oct 1797
MP for Northamptonshire 1774-1797
26 Jan 1800 2 Thomas Powys 8 Apr 1775 4 Jul 1825 50
4 Jul 1825 3 Thomas Atherton Powys 2 Dec 1801 15 Mar 1861 59
15 Mar 1861 4 Thomas Lyttelton Powys 18 Mar 1833 17 Jun 1896 63
17 Jun 1896 5 John Powys 12 Jan 1863 17 Dec 1945 82
17 Dec 1945 6 Stephen Powys 8 Mar 1869 19 Sep 1949 80
19 Sep 1949 7 George Vernon Powys 8 Jan 1931 3 Jan 2005 73
3 Jan 2005 8 Mark Vernon Powys 16 Nov 1975
LIMERICK
11 Dec 1661 B[I] 1 Roger Palmer 4 Sep 1634 28 Jul 1705 70
to     Created Baron of Limerick and Earl of 
28 Jul 1705 Castlemaine 11 Dec 1661
Peerage extinct on his death
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
2 Jan 1686 E[I] 1 Sir William Dungan,4th baronet c 1630 Dec 1698
Created Viscount Dungan of Clane and
Earl of Limerick 2 Jan 1686
Dec 1698 2 Thomas Dungan 1634 14 Dec 1715 81
to     Peerage extinct on his death
14 Dec 1715
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
13 May 1719 V[I] 1 James Hamilton 17 Mar 1758
Created Baron Claneboye and Viscount
Limerick 13 May 1719, and Earl of Clanbrassil
24 Nov 1756
See "Clanbrassill"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
22 Jan 1803 E[I] 1 Edmond Henry Pery,2nd Baron Glentworth 8 Jan 1758 7 Dec 1844 86
Created Viscount Limerick 29 Dec 1800,
Earl of Limerick 22 Jan 1803 and Baron
Foxford [UK] 11 Aug 1815
PC [I] 1797
7 Dec 1844 2 William Tenison Pery 19 Oct 1812 5 Jan 1866 53
5 Jan 1866 3 William Hale John Charles Pery 17 Jan 1840 8 Aug 1896 56
PC 1889  KP 1892 
8 Aug 1896 4 William Henry Esmond de Vere Sheaffe Pery 16 Sep 1863 18 Mar 1929 65
18 Mar 1929 5 Edmund Colquhoun Pery 16 Oct 1888 4 Aug 1967 78
CH 1961
4 Aug 1967 6 Patrick Edmund Pery 12 Apr 1930 8 Jan 2003 72
8 Jan 2003 7 Edmund Christopher Pery 10 Feb 1963
LINCOLN
c 1140 E 1 William de Roumare c 1095 c 1155
to     Created Earl of Lincoln c 1140
c 1155 On his death the peerage reverted to the
Crown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
c 1147 1 Gilbert de Gand 1156
to     Created Earl of Lincoln c 1147
1156 On his death the peerage reverted to the
Crown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
23 May 1217 E 1 Randolph de Blondeville 28 Oct 1232
to     Created Earl of Lincoln 23 May 1217
28 Oct 1232 On his death the peerage reverted to the
Crown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
22 Nov 1232 E 1 John de Lacy c 1192 22 Jul 1240
Created Earl of Lincoln 22 Nov 1232
22 Jul 1240 2 Edmund de Lacy 1230 21 Jul 1257 27
21 Jul 1257 3 Henry de Lacy c 1250 5 Feb 1311
5 Feb 1311 4 Alice Plantagenet c 1283 2 Oct 1348
to     On her death the peerage reverted to the
2 Oct 1348 Crown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
20 Aug 1349 E 1 Henry Plantagenet c 1300 13 Mar 1361
to         Created Earl of Lincoln 20 Aug 1349
13 Mar 1361 and Duke of Lancaster 6 Mar 1351
See "Lancaster"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
13 Mar 1467 E 1 John de la Pole c 1464 16 Jun 1487
to     Created Earl of Lincoln 13 Mar 1467
16 Jun 1487 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1484-1485
Peerage extinct on his death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
18 Jun 1525 E 1 Henry Brandon 11 Mar 1516 c 1540
to     Created Earl of Lincoln 18 Jun 1525
c 1540 Peerage extinct on his death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
4 May 1572 E 1 Edward Clinton,9th Lord Clinton 1512 16 Jan 1585 72
Created Earl of Lincoln 4 May 1572
Lord High Admiral 1550-1554 and 1558-1585.
Lord Lieutenant Lincoln  KG 1551
16 Jan 1585 2 Henry Clinton  1540 29 Sep 1616 76
MP for Launceston 1559 and Lincolnshire
1571
29 Sep 1616 3 Thomas Clinton c 1568 15 Jan 1619
MP for Great Grimsby 1601-1604 and
Lincolnshire 1604-1610
15 Jan 1619 4 Theophilus Clinton  1600 22 May 1667 66
22 May 1667 5 Edward Clinton c 1650 25 Nov 1692
25 Nov 1692 6 Francis Clinton c 1635 4 Sep 1693
4 Sep 1693 7 Henry Clinton   1684 7 Sep 1728 44
PC 1715  KG 1721  Lord Lieutenant Cambridge
Mar-Jun 1728
7 Sep 1728 8 George Clinton 15 Jan 1718 30 Apr 1730 12
30 Apr 1730 9 Henry Pelham-Clinton,later [1768] 2nd Duke of 
Newcastle under Lyne 16 Apr 1720 22 Feb 1794 73
22 Feb 1794 10 Thomas Pelham-Clinton,3rd Duke of Newcastle 1 Jul 1752 17 May 1795 42
17 May 1795 11 Henry Pelham Pelham-Clinton,4th Duke of
Newcastle 31 Jan 1785 12 Jan 1851 65
12 Jan 1851 12 Henry Pelham Pelham-Clinton,5th Duke of
Newcastle 22 May 1811 18 Oct 1864 53
18 Oct 1864 13 Henry Pelham Alexander Pelham-Clinton,
6th Duke of Newcastle 25 Jan 1834 22 Feb 1879 45
22 Feb 1879 14 Henry Pelham Archibald Douglas
Pelham-Clinton,7th Duke of Newcastle 28 Sep 1864 30 May 1928 63
30 May 1928 15 Henry Francis Hope Pelham-Clinton-Hope,
8th Duke of Newcastle 3 Feb 1866 20 Apr 1941 75
20 Apr 1941 16 Henry Edward Hugh Pelham-Clinton-Hope,
9th Duke of Newcastle 8 Apr 1907 4 Nov 1988 81
4 Nov 1988 17 Edward Charles Pelham-Clinton,10th and last
Duke of Newcastle 18 Aug 1920 25 Dec 1988 68
25 Dec 1988 18 Edward Horace Fiennes-Clinton 23 Feb 1913 7 Jul 2001 88
7 Jul 2001 19 Robert Edward Fiennes-Clinton 19 Jun 1972
LINCOLNSHIRE
26 Feb 1912 M 1 Charles Wynn-Carrington,1st Earl Carrington 16 May 1843 13 Jun 1928 85
to     Created Marquess of Lincolnshire
13 Jun 1928 26 Feb 1912
MP for Wycombe 1865-1868. Governor of
NSW 1886-1890. President of the Board of
Agriculture 1905-1911. Lord Privy Seal
1911-1912.KG 1906. Lord Lieutenant of
Buckinghamshire 1915-1923
Peerage extinct on his death
LINDGREN
9 Feb 1961 B[L] 1 George Samuel Lindgren 11 Nov 1900 8 Sep 1971 70
to     Created Baron Lindgren for life 9 Feb 1961
8 Sep 1971 MP for Wellingborough 1945-1959
Peerage extinct on his death
LINDLEY
10 May 1900 B[L] 1 Nathaniel Lindley 29 Nov 1828 9 Dec 1921 93
to     Created Baron Lindley for life 10 May 1900
9 Dec 1921 Lord Justice of Appeal 1881-1897. Master
of the Rolls 1897-1900. Lord of Appeal in
Ordinary 1900-1905.  PC 1881
peerage extinct on his death
LINDORES
31 Mar 1600 B[S] 1 Patrick Leslie c 1608
Created Lord Lindores 31 Mar 1600
c 1608 2 Patrick Leslie 8 Aug 1649
8 Aug 1649 3 James Leslie c 1666
c 1666 4 John Leslie 17 Jan 1706
17 Jan 1706 5 David Leslie Jul 1719
Jul 1719 6 Alexander Leslie 3 Sep 1765
3 Sep 1765 7 James Francis Leslie 30 Jun 1775
30 Jun 1775 8 John Leslie 1750 May 1813 62
to     Since his death the peerage has remained
May 1813 unclaimed
LINDSAY
22 Feb 1445 B[S] 1 John Lindsay 6 Feb 1482
Created Lord Lindsay 22 Feb 1445
6 Feb 1482 2 David Lindsay 1490
1490 3 John Lindsay 1497
1497 4 Patrick Lindsay 1526
1526 5 John Lindsay 17 Dec 1563
17 Dec 1563 6 Patrick Lindsay 1521 11 Dec 1589 68
11 Dec 1589 7 James Lindsay 1554 5 Nov 1601 47
5 Nov 1601 8 John Lindsay 5 Nov 1609
5 Nov 1609 9 Robert Lindsay 9 Jul 1616
9 Jul 1616 10 John Lindsay,later [1652] 17th Earl of Crawford c 1598 1678
8 May 1633 E[S] 1 Created Lord Parbroath and Earl of
Lindsay 8 May 1633
1678 2 William Lindsay,18th Earl of Crawford Apr 1644 6 Mar 1698 53
6 Mar 1698 3 John Lindsay,19th Earl of Crawford by 1672 Dec 1713
Dec 1713 4 John Lindsay,20th Earl of Crawford 4 Oct 1702 25 Dec 1749 47
25 Dec 1749 5 George Lindsay-Crawford,21st Earl of Crawford c 1729 11 Aug 1781
11 Aug 1781 6 George Lindsay-Crawford,22nd Earl of Crawford 31 Jan 1758 30 Jan 1808 49
30 Jan 1808 7 David Lindsay 5 May 1809
5 May 1809 8 Patrick Lindsay 24 Feb 1778 14 Jul 1839 61
14 Jul 1839 9 Henry Lindsay Bethune 12 Apr 1787 19 Feb 1851 63
19 Feb 1851 10 John Trotter Bethune 3 Jan 1827 12 May 1894 67
For information regarding a potential claimant
to the titles who appeared in 1913, but does not
appear to have ever pursued such claim,see the
note at the foot of this page
12 May 1894 11 David Clark Bethune 18 Apr 1832 20 Mar 1917 84
20 Mar 1917 12 Reginald Bethune 18 May 1867 14 Jan 1939 71
14 Jan 1939 13 Archibald Lionel Lindesay-Bethune 14 Aug 1872 15 Oct 1943 71
15 Oct 1943 14 William Tucker Lindesay-Bethune 28 Apr 1901 19 Oct 1985 84
19 Oct 1985 15 David Lindesay-Bethune 9 Feb 1926 1 Aug 1989 63
1 Aug 1989 16 James Randolph Lindesay-Bethune 19 Nov 1955
LINDSAY AND BALNEIL
9 Jan 1651 B[S] 1 Alexander Lindsay 6 Jul 1618 30 Aug 1659 41
Created Lord Lindsay and Balneil and
Earl of Balcarres 9 Jan 1651
See "Balcarres"
LINDSAY OF BIRKER
13 Nov 1945 B 1 Alexander Dunlop Lindsay 14 May 1879 18 Mar 1952 72
Created Baron Lindsay of Birker
13 Nov 1945
18 Mar 1952 2 Michael Francis Morris Lindsay 24 Feb 1909 13 Feb 1994 84
13 Feb 1994 3 James Francis Lindsay 29 Jan 1945
LINDSEY
22 Nov 1626 E 1 Robert Bertie, 12th Lord Willoughby de Eresby 17 Dec 1582 23 Oct 1642 59
Created Earl of Lindsey 22 Nov 1626
Lord Lieutenant Lincoln 1629  KG 1630
23 Oct 1642 2 Montagu Bertie c 1608 25 Jul 1666
MP for Lincoln 1624-1625 and Stamford
1625-1626. Lord Lieutenant Lincoln 1660-1666
KG 1661
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Willoughby de Eresby
3 Nov 1640
25 Jul 1666 3 Robert Bertie  8 Nov 1630  9 May 1701 70
MP for Boston 1661-1666. Lord Lieutenant
Lincoln 1666-1700.  PC 1682
9 May 1701 4 Robert Bertie 20 Oct 1660 26 Jul 1723 62
21 Dec 1706 M 1 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Willoughby de Eresby
19 Apr 1690
Created Marquess of Lindsey 21 Dec
1706 and Duke of Ancaster and
Kesteven 26 Jul 1715
26 Jul 1723 5 Peregrine Bertie,2nd Duke of Ancaster 29 Apr 1686 1 Jan 1742 55
2
1 Jan 1742 6 Peregrine Bertie,3rd Duke of Ancaster 1714 12 Aug 1778 64
3
12 Aug 1778 7 Robert Bertie,4th Duke of Ancaster 17 Oct 1736  8 Jul 1779 42
4
8 Jul 1779 8 Brownlow Bertie,5th Duke of Ancaster 1 May 1729 8 Feb 1809 79
to     5 On his death the Marquessate became
8 Feb 1809 extinct,whilst the Earldom passed to -
8 Feb 1809 9 Albemarle Bertie 17 Sep 1744 18 Sep 1818 74
MP for Stamford 1801-1809
18 Sep 1818 10 George Augustus Frederick Albemarle
Bertie 4 Nov 1814 21 Mar 1877 62
21 Mar 1877 11 Montagu Peregrine Bertie 25 Dec 1815 29 Jan 1899 83
29 Jan 1899 12 Montagu Peregrine Albemarle Bertie 3 Sep 1861 2 Jan 1938 76
2 Jan 1938 13 Montagu Henry Edmund Cecil Bertie 2 Nov 1887 11 Sep 1963 75
He had previously succeeded to the Earldom of 
Abingdon (qv) in 1928 with which title this peerage 
then merged
11 Sep 1963 14 Richard Henry Rupert Bertie (also 9th Earl of
Abingdon) 28 Jun 1931
LINGEN
3 Jul 1885 B 1 Ralph Robert Wheeler Lingen 19 Feb 1819 22 Jul 1905 86
to     Created Baron Lingen 3 Jul 1885
22 Jul 1905 Peerage extinct on his death
LINGFIELD
17 Dec 2010 B[L] 1 Sir Robert George Alexander Balchin 31 Jul 1942
Created Baron Lingfield for life 17 Dec 2010
 
The Leigh Peerage Case of 1829
The following article, written by Dalrymple Belgrave, forms part of a series entitled "Romances
of High Life" published in the "Manchester Times" in 1898.
'The Leighs of Stoneleigh are one of those families who gained their wealth and power in the 
City of London. In the middle of the sixteenth century Thomas Leigh, the younger son of a 
gentleman of an old Cheshire family (a younger branch of the Leighs of Lyme) came up to 
London to seek his fortune in the City. He was an industrious apprentice, and gained the 
respect of his master, the rich Alderman Sir Rowland Hill, whose niece and heiress he was 
fortunate enough to marry. In the last year of Queen Mary's reign he was Lord Mayor of London.
He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and died in 1571, a great London citizen, leaving a large
fortune behind him for his widow and two sons, Rowland and Thomas. His widow, Lady Leigh,
purchased Stoneleigh, where she lived the remainder of her life, and at her death she left
Stoneleigh to her younger son, Thomas. This Thomas was the grandfather of another Thomas,
who was one of the first baronets created by James I.
'The second baronet lived in troublous times, in which he lost money and gained honours. He
was a devoted Loyalist. When at the beginning of the troubles King Charles, on his way to 
Nottingham to set up the Royal Standard, found the gates of Coventry shut against him by a
sturdy Parliamentarian Mayor, he went on to Sir Thomas Leigh's house at Stoneleigh, and there
met with a warm and loyal welcome and right plenteous and hospitable entertainment. Maybe
this took away some of the bitterness from what must have been an ill-omened day, and the
King remembered his loyal host, for in 1643, by letters patent, dated at Oxford, he created him
Baron Leigh of Stoneleigh. As Lord Leigh he was equally loyal to the King, and when the cause
was lost he had to pay Cromwell £4,895 as a composition for his estates. He lived to see
Charles II on the throne, and when he died in 1672 he was succeeded by his grandson Thomas,
his eldest son having died during his lifetime.
'After that the Leigh peerage descended from father to son until the fifth Lord Leigh died,
unmarried, in 1786, leaving a sister, the Hon. Mary Leigh. By his will he left the Stoneleigh
estates to his sister for her life, and after her death they were to go to his "nearest relation of
his blood and name." The fifth Lord Leigh was the last descendant in the male line of the
Cavalier lord, so the peerage became extinct. But the question arose, who was to take the
estates under the will after the death of Miss Leigh, which occurred in 1806? There was a
gentleman of the name of Smith who in the female line descended from the Leighs, and he was 
the nearest male relation of the late Lord Leigh. Taking the name of Leigh by Royal licence, he
claimed to inherit under the will. 
'During her lifetime Miss Leigh had always recognised a Mr. Leigh, of Adlesdrop, Gloucestershire,
as the person who would take the estates under her brother's will. About this gentleman's
pedigree there was no question or doubt. He was the eldest male representative of Rowland 
Leigh, the oldest son of the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Leigh. From his father Rowland
had inherited Adlesdrop, and the property had ever since gone from father to son in unbroken
male succession. What, therefore, was the construction of the words of the will? The Court of
Chancery did not seem to have much difficulty in deciding that the testator meant that the
property should go to his nearest male relative who had inherited the name of Leigh, and that
Mr. Smith-Leigh, though of his blood, was not of his name.
'Mr. Leigh, of Adlesdrop, came to the estates, and he died at Stoneleigh Abbey in 1823, and
was succeeded by his eldest son. But such a will as that made by the last Lord Leigh of 
necessity exercised the interest and ingenuity of pedigree hunters. It would be no empty honour
that a successful claimant would gain, but a fine estate. Most people who know much of English
country life have come across families in very humble circumstances about whom there is a
tradition of past greatness, though their fortunes have declined until there seems to be little
more to support their claim to gentle birth than a dim village legend.
'Such a family as this were in the early years of the century settled at Blackwood, a little village
near Wigan, in Lancashire, and their name was Leigh. There was a Mr. George Leigh, who had
been apprenticed as a boy to a cotton spinner in a small way, and who had married, and was 
the father of a large family. His father was a James Leigh, a tanner. His grandfather was a 
Robert Leigh, who was still remembered by a good many people who lived at Wigan. It was said 
that Robert used to talk about his being of the same family as a Lord Leigh of Stoneleigh, but 
when this story began to be told is doubtful. This Robert Leigh is described as a picturesque 
figure wearing a long blue coat fastened by a massive silver buckle, and the story went that he
would tell people that this buckle had been given him by his kinsman, Lord Leigh, of Stoneleigh. 
It is doubtful, however, whether this story had not originated after the old man's time, and 
when there had been much talk of Stoneleigh. That the old man had been much better off and 
had had reverses was undoubtedly parish history. Robert was the son of another James Leigh, 
who had owned property in the village, and been at least a yeoman, and then there was even a 
dim memory of another Leigh before James, of whom there was still just a trace in the village 
annals; for there was his house at Haigh, in the same parish, marked in maps, and still called, so 
it was said by old inhabitants, Fine Roger's or Captain Leigh's.
'It was about 1812 that Mr. George Leigh was first heard of as a claimant for the Leigh peerage
and for the estates of Stoneleigh under the will of the last Lord Leigh. That Mr. George Leigh
could trace descent from Roger Leigh, of Haigh, there was no doubt. Roger died in 1702. The 
question was, whose son was he? As a claimant to the Leigh Peerage, Mr. George Leigh would 
look for an ancestor amongst the five sons of the first Lord Leigh. The eldest died an infant. The
second died before his father, but married, and had one son, who became the second Lord Leigh.
The third, Charles, lived to old age, but died unmarried; the fourth son was Christopher Leigh.
'Christopher Leigh had married, and there was no question that his wife had died without 
children, but the story seems somehow to have reached Mr. Leigh that Christopher had made a
first marriage into the family of Cotton, of Combermere, from which marriage his ancestor Roger 
was born.
'The first, but by far the easiest, step in a peerage claim is to make out a pedigree. The difficult
thing to do is to prove it. The difficulty in Mr. George Leigh's pedigree was to prove that Roger
Leigh, of Haigh, was the son of the Honourable Christopher. For this absence of direct proof the
claimant attempted to account by a rather remarkable theory. In 1819, after spending some 
years in making inquiries, he presented his petition. The Attorney-General, however, after 
hearing his case, reported that he had failed to show that Christopher Leigh was the father of
Robert Leigh. It was after this petition had been presented that a handbill was circulated in and
about the village of Stoneleigh. It was headed "100 Guineas Reward" and it said that whereas,
under the specious pretence of restoring Stoneleigh Church, a certain portion of the north wall 
of Stoneleigh Church had been in the year 1811 pulled down, so as to give an excuse for 
removing a monument which was on the wall to the memory of Christopher Leigh, the above 
reward would be given to anyone who could give an exact description of the inscription on the
monument, or who would give information which would convict the persons who had removed it
or caused it to be removed.  
'Needless to say, the monument to Christopher Leigh became the subject of much talk in the
pretty little Warwickshire village of Stoneleigh, and, as years went on, it began to take a more
solid, substantial form in the memory of some of its inhabitants. In 1826 Mr. George Leigh, who
had commenced legal proceedings for the estates, applied to the Court of Queen's Bench [sic -
it would have been King's Bench in 1826] for an order to inspect Stoneleigh Abbey, to search
for a monument to Christopher Leigh and his son Roger Leigh, which was buried under the cellar. 
He supported this application with numerous affidavits of inhabitants of Stoneleigh, who had 
seen its removal to the Abbey.
'The Court, however, did not grant the plaintiffs the inspection, though it seemed that some 
officer of the Court of Chancery held some inquiry at the Abbey, and satisfied himself that there
was no truth in the story. Mainly, however, by evidence as to the monument that had been in
Stoneleigh Church, the claimant had so strengthened his case that the Attorney-General 
reported that there was enough in his case to justify an inquiry before a Committee of Privileges 
of the House of Lords. Early in 1829, the claimant's case was opened. His counsel were Mr. 
Adam and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, who was then in the early stages of the long career at the Bar and 
on the Bench which did not conclude until after the Court of Exchequer, over which he presided 
as Lord Chief Baron, was abolished by the Judicature Act in 1876. The Attorney-General 
appeared, as he always does in peerage claims, to resist the claim and test its genuineness. 
The House of Lords also allowed Mr. Leigh, of Stoneleigh, to appear by counsel to resist the 
claim, for, though he made no claim to the peerage, his right to the Stoneleigh estates was 
practically at stake. Mr. Chandos Leigh's counsel were Sir J. Scarlett and the Common Serjeant 
of London.
'When Mr. Adam opened the case it was very soon clear that the weak point in his case was 
the descent of Roger Leigh, of Haigh, from his alleged father, Christopher Leigh. When he
approached this subject, he found it necessary to make what practically were charges of fraud
against some person or persons acting on behalf of the other side. In the claimant's pedigree
it was stated that Roger Leigh was the son of Christopher Leigh by the latter's first marriage
with the daughter of Sir George Cotton, of Combermere. The then Lord Combermere, he said,
had been under the impression that in an old parchment pedigree that had been in his
possession at Combermere it was stated that one of the daughters of the family of Cotton,
which he represented, had married someone of the name of Leigh. That pedigree, however,
he had never been able to find after a legal gentleman who had been acting for the claimant,
Mr. George Leigh, had been to Combermere to look at it in 1814. Unfortunately, Lord Combermere
was in India, and could not be called. Wrenbury, in Cheshire, was the parish church in which the
members of the Cotton family were married. A search had been made in the register of that
church, but it had been discovered that the register of marriages from 1645 to 1657 had been
obliterated so that nothing could be read. The probabilities were that Christopher Leigh's first 
marriage would have been about in the year 1647, as he was born in 1626. It was probable that
he had lived after his marriage at Stoneleigh, but a search in the parish register of baptisms at
Stoneleigh had shown that for those years they were faulty, and that there were missing pages.
Then he approached what became afterwards the main point  in the case - the question
of the monument in Stoneleigh Church.
Pedigrees had been proved in peerage claims by inscriptions on monuments, and in this case he
would bring an overwhelming amount of testimony to prove that in Stoneleigh Church there had
been on the north wall, almost in a line with the reading-desk, a monument or mural tablet to 
the memory of Christopher Leigh, and his son, Roger Leigh, of Haigh. In Lancashire. This
monument had remained in the church until 1811, when the wall had been taken down for a 
restoration of the church, but it had never been put up again after the wall had been rebuilt.
The existence of this monument, he said, he would show by a great number of witnesses who
had seen it, one of whom, a churchwarden, had, after the restoration of the church, asked 
about its being put up again. He also stated that he would have some evidence to show that 
the monument had been taken from the vestry, where it was first put after it had been taken 
down, and carried to Stoneleigh Abbey.
'The first part of the evidence that was called by the plaintiff was directed to exhausting all the
male descendants of the second Lord Leigh, any of whom, had they existed, would have cut out
his claim, and also to showing that the other older brothers of Christopher Leigh had left no
children. As to this part of the case there was no difficulty, but to prove it Mr. Causton had
made researches on behalf of the claimant. Mr. Causton had taken a very active part in helping 
the claimant, and Sir John Scarlett made the most of this opportunity of learning some of the
secrets from the enemy's camp. He was cross-examined as to the part he had played in assist-
ing the claimant's case, and he admitted, candidly enough, that he had lent the claimant some
£2,000, and he hoped to be paid with large interest if the claimant obtained the estates.
'He was also cross-examined as to the handbill about the monument. He admitted that he had
printed it, though he had not put his name to it as printer. He was also asked about a solicitor,
a Mr. Bankes, who had retired from the claimant's case. He said he was dissatisfied with that
gentleman, but he was asked whether Mr. Bankes had not stated that he had discovered the
existence of a document that put an extinguisher on the claimant's case.
'After Mr. Causton came the most remarkable part of the case - the evidence as to the 
existence of the monument to Christopher Leigh. On the north wall of Stoneleigh Church there
was, and probably is to this day, a monument to a certain ----- Webster, Esq., of Canley, who
was High Sheriff of Warwickshire; but thirty witnesses swore that on the north wall there had
also been a tablet to the Hon. Christopher Leigh.
'Most of these witnesses were parishioners of Stoneleigh, who had been to the church Sunday 
after Sunday, though some were persons who had relatives or friends at Stoneleigh. Some of
these witnesses were small farmers, small tradesmen, and agricultural labourers. One or two of
them had been servants at Stoneleigh Abbey. One witness had been the churchwarden at the
time of the restoration. He remembered the monument being taken down and put in the vestry.
He asked about it being put up again, and was told by the land steward at Stoneleigh, who was
superintending the restoration, that it had been taken up to the Abbey to be cleaned, as it was
a Leigh monument. Another person, who had been on the Restoration Committee, gave evidence
to the same effect. One man, who sat in a pew under the monument, said that he remembered,
when he was a boy,  reading the name Leigh as if it was Leach, and then he said that he
afterwards noticed the name spelled in the same way on the carts belonging to the Hon. Miss
Leigh, the sister of the last Lord Leigh, and he then knew it was the same name as Leigh of
Stoneleigh. Another witness, who swore to the monument, had been in the service of the Hon.
Miss Leigh. He said he remembered, when he was living in her house in London as hall porter,
there was a letter came to her from Stoneleigh, telling her of some wrong thing that one of his
relations had done, and that his mistress had said to him that it would be hard if he were to be
blamed for that, and she had gone on to say that her nearest relations were people living in
Lancashire, whom she did not know, and it would be hard if she were blamed for anything they
did.
'Then there was another witness who remembered copying down the Roman letters in which the
date of Christopher Leigh's death was written, and getting the village schoolmaster to tell him
what they meant. All these witnesses remembered the name Christopher Leigh on the monument,
most of them remembered that it stated he was the son of Lord Leigh and Lady Mary, his wife,
that he married a daughter of Cotton, of Combermere, and many of them remembered also that
the monument was also to the memory of Roger Leigh, son of Christopher, who was of Haigh, in
Lancashire, and married someone of the name of Higham. None of these witnesses were really
much shaken in cross-examination, but as one reads the report of the proceedings before the
House of Lords one gets the impression that Sir John Scarlett must have had much confidence
that he possessed an extinguisher that he could use at the proper time. He seemed to be 
anxious to emphasise the memory that the witnesses had of Roger Leigh, of Haigh, who married
Higham, being on the tablet.
'Rather more remarkable evidence was given of the removal of the monument. One witness
remembered seeing four men, whom she did not know, take it away from the church towards
Stoneleigh Abbey. It was wrapped in a blanket, but he could see the Roman numbers on it, and
he recognised it. Another witness told a more dramatic story. He was, in 1811, employed to
bring the mail bag to Stoneleigh Abbey, and one day when he came up to the house he saw the
four men carrying the monument, which he recognised by the Roman numbers, and he followed
them into the house. He was surprised to see that there were no servants about the place. He
followed the four men, as he wanted to see the butler, to give him the post bag. The men 
walked through the kitchen to the cellar. They were no servants about anywhere, but at the 
cellar door stood Mr. Leigh, who pointed to the men to go into the cellar. The Hon. Mrs. Leigh
stood on the cellar stairs with a candle in her hand. The men carried the stone down into the
cellar, and then Mr. Leigh went away. Witness saw Ilet, the butler, in the cellar, and Ilet told
him that he was not wanted there. In cross-examination, Sir John Scarlett suggested that he
had left out some of his story, for in an affidavit he had made he had said that Mr. Leigh went
away looking much rejoiced. Another witness said that once after Mr. George Leigh had been
to Stoneleigh village Ilet had said to him: "So the old lord has been here asking about the
monument," and he went on to say that he had seen the monument "in the church - aye, and
out of the church." This witness also said that once when he helped Ilet, the butler, to do
some work in the cellar, the latter had laughed and pointed at the ground, and said: "There
lies Christopher."
'After the evidence about the monument the clergyman from Wrenbury was called to produce
the register for that parish. It was suggested by Sir John Scarlett that the pages in the
register, which were undoubtedly obliterated, had been the outside sheets of the old book
before they had been bound into a new book, and so had got damp and in bad condition. The
witness had, however, in 1813, filled up a return to the Bishop as to the condition of the
registers, in which he stated they were in perfect condition from the year 1600. This certainly
did not agree with the theory of the outside sheets having been years before damaged by
damp, though the appearance of the book seems to have done so.
After the claimant's case some evidence was given about the monument for the other side.
The Rev. Morgan Thomas, the Rector of Stoneleigh, was called, but it appeared that he knew 
very little about Stoneleigh Church; in fact, he had only been inside it a few times. It was in the
old days of pluralities, and he had another living in Oxfordshire. Besides, for some years he had
resided first at Eton and then at Oxford, as he had been the tutor to the sons of a noble duke.
He remembered monuments in the chancel to the Leighs and to a sister of the first Lord Leigh,
who, by a unique grant, had been created by Charles I a duchess for her life [this was Anne,
Duchess of Dudley], but he had never seen one to Christopher Leigh. A more important witness
was a Mr. Roberts, who had been curate at Stoneleigh, and whose father had been curate
before him. He had never seen a monument to Christopher Leigh. He remembered Webster of
Canley's monument, and when the wall was taken down gave special directions that it should
be put up again as nearly as possible in the same place.
'Mr. Hadley, the house steward of Stoneleigh Abbey, who directed the repairs of the church, 
said there was only one monument on the wall when it was taken down. The Hon. Mrs Leigh
said that she stayed with her uncle, the Rev. Mr. Leigh, before the church was altered on one
occasion, and that she went with him to look at the Leigh monuments in the chancel. She saw
the monument to Webster of Canley, on the north wall, and asked Mr. Leigh if he visited that
family, as they seemed to be of some position. She would have noticed any monument on the
north wall to Christopher Leigh. She also stated that neither she nor her husband had come to
live at Stoneleigh at the time the church was restored. Some servants of the family and some
inhabitants of Stoneleigh were called to say that there was no monument to Christopher.
'All this, however, was comparatively unimportant compared with the extinguisher which Sir
John Scarlett proceeded to put upon the claimant's case. This was obtained not from the
records of the Stoneleigh family, but from further research into the parish registers of Wigan,
which threw more light upon the history of Roger Leigh, of Haigh. In 1680, James Leigh, the
son of Roger Leigh, was baptised, but he was not Roger's eldest child. Going back, there was
in 1677 the baptism of Esther, daughter of Roger Leigh, of Haigh. Going further back, there 
was the registration in 1658 of another daughter of Roger Leigh, of Haigh, called Ellen. It was
impossible that Roger Leigh, of Haigh, who had a daughter in 1658, could be the son of
Christopher Leigh, of Stoneleigh, who was born in 1626. With the production of that register
the case for the claimant broke down.
'How so many witnesses from Stoneleigh could have sworn to the existence of the monument 
to Christopher Leigh and his son Roger Leigh, of Haigh - who could not have been his son - 
is the mystery of the story. It seemed to have been a case of fraud, mixed, perhaps, with
delusion. The claim came to an end, but for years afterwards George Leigh asserted his right
to Stoneleigh, and as late as 1844 he created a riot by attempting to take forcible possession
of Stoneleigh Abbey [See below for further information on this attempt]. For years also, the
evil weeds of falsehood and delusion, which were shown by the handbill offering a reward for
the imaginary monument, grew rank the charming Warwickshire village, and stories which 
were as absurdly impossible as they were malicious were circulated about the family at the
Abbey. [See below for some further information on these allegations]. Now, however, the
high character and popularity of the family have caused these stories either to be forgotten
or remembered with shame in the village of Stoneleigh.'
 
                                        ***********************
The following is taken from "Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper" of 27 October 1844:-
'Between one and two o'clock this afternoon the fashionable town of Leamington Spa was in
a state of the greatest commotion, in consequence of the examination of thirty-two individuals,
who had been apprehended the same morning by Mr. Roby, the superintendent of police, they
having been engaged in unlawfully taking possession of Stoneleigh Abbey, the mansion of the
Right Honourable Lord Leigh. It will be recollected that, some years ago, a long protracted claim,
made by a person named George Leigh, as the right owner of the extensive estates of Lord
[Leigh], then Mr. Chandos Leigh, was brought to a close in the defeat of the claimant. A new
claimant, named John Leigh, has just come forward, and the particulars subjoined will best
explain the mode in which he sought to enforce his pretensions. On Tuesday last possession of
the abbey was claimed by John Leigh, in company with James and Thomas Leigh, members of
the same family, and other persons; but upon being remonstrated with by Mr. Chapman, the
steward of Lord Leigh, they peaceably retired, at the same time, however, intimating their
intention of again visiting the mansion upon the same errand. We believe that no member of the 
Leigh family is at the abbey, and are informed that an opportunity for gaining an entrance to the
building, during their absence, has long been watched for by the present claimant and his
adherents. A despatch from Lord Leigh's solicitor, Mr. George Jones, was forwarded this morning
to the county magistrates resident in Leamington, and warrants were immediately granted for 
the apprehension of the rioters. Mr. George Jones deposed…….: "I was this morning left in charge
of Stoneleigh Abbey……as solicitor of the Right Honourable Chandos Baron Leigh. Between eight
and nine o'clock this morning, I saw a mob of about thirty men coming down the private road to
the corridor entrance to the abbey, which doors they tried to open, but could not; they then 
went to the entrance door called the housekeeper's door. I demanded who was there, and their
business, telling them there was no entrance. They immediately broke through a panel of the 
door with hammers and other weapons. I then took a bar of iron, and through the broken panel
struck at the legs of one man, after which the door was directly broken in. I think about thirty
entered the abbey, and I heard persons following me as I went in search of arms, swearing 
they'd murder me. Not being able to find any fire arms, I got on the roof of the abbey, and 
thence escaped by means of a ladder, which was brought to me. On getting down I went to
Coventry for assistance, and on returning, in about three quarters of an hour, I found about
thirty men in the abbey, whom I am have no doubt are the same men I have mentioned, and two
of them I can identify. They had barricaded the door. The civil power having arrived, Kirkland, 
the house steward, removed the barricading, and I gave them separately in charge. I found
twenty-nine men, and two women in the housekeeper's room. They are all in custody, and are 
prisoners at the bar. Most of them were armed with hammers and bludgeons. On the previous
Friday six or seven of the same men (whom I can identify) came to two entrances of the
domain, and ordered the gates to be opened. I refused them entrance, telling them there was
no road. After an hour and a half's abuse, they left, saying they were not ready then, but
would come again another day. I saw [naming eleven men, including James, John and Thomas
Leigh] approach the corridor window. Outside the abbey there were some policemen and some
of Lord Leigh's servants before the men had forced an entrance, as above-mentioned; and I
saw James Leigh strike some of them with a bludgeon. [The report then names all of the men
and women who had been charged]. Mr. Jones having informed the prisoners that they were
charged with creating a riot and assaulting the servants of Lord Leigh and the police, James
Leigh inquired whether his lordship's title to the estates was in possession of the court? The
magistrate's clerk replied that his lordship was not present himself, but was represented by Mr.
Jones. Mr. Jones said Lord Leigh was at present at Sandgate, and Thomas Leigh said he should
wish to go to prison until the arrival of their (the prisoners') solicitors. In reply to a question
from James Leigh, Mr. Jones said he had authority from Lord Leigh to pay attention to the abbey
during his absence, and principally in reference to this matter. James Leigh said the present was
a question for the House of Lords to decide upon, and urged that the magistrates had no juris-
diction in the affair. It was a question of peerage, and Lord Leigh was not Baron Leigh, but John
Leigh was the proper heir. Several witnesses were then examined, and the labourers on the 
estate who exerted themselves  before the arrival of the police, appeared to have suffered most
severely. The evidence in the case was very lengthy, not terminating till near half-past six
o'clock, and the large room of the public office was completely crowded during the investigation,
and several hundreds awaited the magistrates' decision outside the building. Many of the 
witnesses were cross examined by James Leigh, with a view to prove that Lord Leigh was aware
of their intention, which certainly appeared apparent from the answers elicited. The females 
were discharged, and the 29 males, who made no resistance to the Leamington police, were
committed to take their trials at the sessions, the bench at the same time intimating their 
willingness to accept bail for their appearance.'
At the subsequent Warwick Assizes held in December 1844, all of the prisoners were found
guilty of forcible entry; James Leigh and three others guilty of assault; but none of the
prisoners were found guilty of rioting. James Leigh, as ringleader, received 18 months with hard
labour, the other three convicted of assault received 12 months with hard labour and the
remainder of the prisoners received three months' imprisonment.
                                        ***********************
One would have thought that, after the hearing before the House of Lords Committee of 
Privileges and the subsequent invasion of his property, Lord Leigh was entitled to some respite.
Unfortunately for him, this was not to be, for in May 1848, an accusation was laid before the
Warwickshire magistrates, which claimed that Lord Leigh had been involved in a number of
murders, which had taken place many years before. The accusation, which was made by 
our old friend James Leigh, accused Lord Leigh of murdering four men and burying their bodies
under a bridge which crossed the River Avon on the Leigh estates. The principal witness was
a man named Barnett, a convicted felon, who died shortly afterwards from the effects of drink.
An application was made for a search of the foundations of the bridge in an attempt to find
the bodies, but this was rejected as being 'utterly absurd' by the magistrates and Barnett died
before he could be prosecuted for perjury.
This outcome did not, however, deter a local solicitor, Charles Griffin, from publishing, in July
1848, a book titled "Stoneleigh Abbey Thirty Years Ago" in which he repeated the accusations
made against Lord Leigh. Griffin had been John Leigh's defence lawyer following the invasion of
Stoneleigh Abbey in 1844. Griffin was charged with libel and was tried before Lord Chief Justice
Wilde in March/April 1849. Griffin's allegations were found to be ridiculous and he was sentenced
to two years' imprisonment.
Lord Edward FitzGerald, 5th son of the 1st Duke of Leinster (15 Oct 1763-4 Jun 1798)
The following biography of Lord Edward FitzGerald appeared in the March 1953 issue of the
Australian monthly magazine "Parade." It should be noted that throughout the biography his
name is spelled as "Fitzgerald," whereas it should be "FitzGerald."
'Fog blurred the few lights in Thomas Street, Dublin, one night in March, 1798, when a cloak-
muffled soldier, pistol in hand, slipped from a doorway and accosted a solitary figure plodding
along the footpath. "Edward Fitzgerald," he said, "I arrest you in the name of......." The
ominous words choked off as a strong hand closed on the soldier's' throat while another
wrenched away the pistol. Major [Henry Charles] Sirr [1764-1841], the hated Dublin manhunter, 
who had made a bold bid for the £1000 reward offered for Lord Edward Fitzgerald, one of 
Ireland's greatest patriots, had been foiled by his victim's faithful bodyguard. The mercenary
major expected no mercy. Traitors and informers caught in the act were invariably dragged
dead from the Liffey. It was with some surprise, therefore, that he felt the strangling hold 
slacken on his throat and heard the man he had tried to seize sternly order the bodyguard to
release him. Still fingering his throat, Major Sirr ran like a rat into the darkness. Edward 
Fitzgerald lived to rue his clemency, for when at last he was cornered it was the venomous
Major Sirr who fired the shot that sent him to a hideous death in the stinking cells of Newgate.
Edward Fitzgerald never fitted into the accepted pattern of the desperate bomb-throwing rebel.
Even his enemies admitted he was "honourable to a fault and incapable of falsehood or perfidy."
As the fifth son of the [1st] Duke of Leinster, Fitzgerald, who was born in 1763, could well
have shared the privileges of his class and ignored the oppressive English occupation of his
country. Ironically, he spent his youth fighting the King's enemies in the American Revolutionary
Wars, being seriously wounded [at the Battle of Eutaw Springs on 8 September 1781. His life
was saved by an escaped slave named Tony Small ("Faithful Tony")]. When the Wars ended,
Fitzgerald returned to Ireland. He entered [the Irish] Parliament as the member for Athy [and
later Kildare County] and learned to hate politics. Four years of talk without action sickened
him. He packed up and returned to his regiment in Canada, where he roamed the backwoods,
living with Indians, who made him a chief of the Huron Bear tribe. He returned to Ireland and
Parliament in 1789 to find the country in a ferment of discontent. 
 
'His first show of sympathy with the rebels was his opposition to the Gunpowder and Arms Bill, 
which prescribed savage penalties for owning or carrying arms. In the same session he estab-
lished himself as a troublemaker. A band of old soldiers had given notice of their intention to
march through Dublin. They called themselves the First National Battalion and flaunted a green
banner with the crown missing from above the harp. The authorities banned the march.
Fitzgerald spoke bitterly against the ban and was brought before the Bar of the House to 
apologise for his insults. His apology was more insulting than his speech.
'Fitzgerald was now seen more and more in company with Arthur O'Connor [1763-1852], the
well-known revolutionary. In 1792 they attended the Convention of Paris together. There
Fitzgerald met Thomas Paine, the real architect of the American Revolution, and shared his
quarters. During the Convention, Fitzgerald and Sir Robert Smith attended a dinner and met the
leaders of the French revolutionaries. To them Fitzgerald proposed his now famous toast: "To
the speedy abolition of all hereditary titles [and feudal distinctions]." When the news filtered
across the Channel, the nobility, especially those in Ireland, clamoured for action against
Fitzgerald. He was cashiered from the Army. He did not mind. Right or wrong, he was pledged 
now to the cause of Irish freedom. 
 
'One night at a theatre in Paris Fitzgerald happened to glance into the next box, where, for the
first time, he saw Pamela, beautiful ward of the famous Madame de Genlis. It was love at first
sight for the Irishman. Historians have squabbled for years over Pamela's origin. Some accept
Madame de Genlis' story that she was a young English girl adopted on one of her trips to 
England. Others maintained that she was Madame's illegitimate daughter by the Royal Duke of
Orleans. The historians agree on one thing - Pamela was the most beautiful woman in Paris.
Within 24 hours Fitzgerald had proposed and was accepted. The were married a month later 
[27 December 1792]. It was a noble but tragic marriage. Even when he was hunted as a rebel
outcast, her love stood the test.
 
'On his return from France, Irish unrest had found an active outlet in the League of Irishmen - 
an underground society formed a few years before. Though his association with the League was
necessarily secret, his sympathies were there for all to see. One day, returning from the races
at the Curragh of Clare with his friend Arthur O'Connor he passed a group of dragoon officers.
The officers noticed the green scarf he was wearing, wheeled their horses and demanded he
take it off. Fitzgerald faced them down. If any man objected to the colour of his scarf, he told
them, let him take it off with the point of a sword. The dragoons went on their way.
 
'In a short time the League became a military organisation directed by a Military Committee.
Fitzgerald, the soldier, took command of the war­like preparations. On their own estimate, the
Committee had 280,000 armed men ready to rise at a moment's notice. England, well aware of
the threat, poured in occupation troops. The League lacked trained officers and believed that 
outside aid was necessary for the success of the revolution. Accordingly, in May 1796, 
Fitzgerald and O'Connor went to the Continent seeking help. The French revolutionary army, in
the full flush of victory, was sympathetic to all would-be revolutionaries. The Irishmen met
The Irishmen met General [Louis Lazare] Hoche [1768-1797] in Hamburg and reached a tentative
agreement with him. When the time was ripe he would land in Ireland with 15,000 French troops.
Fitzgerald and O'Connor returned jubilant. 
 
'The transaction on the Continent did not pass unnoticed in England. The Duke of York, meeting
Pamela as she passed through London, dropped a hint that "all was known" and it was time
Fitzgerald left Ireland. He ignored the warning. Two years passed and the promised French aid
did not materialise. Apart from General Hoche's abortive raid on Bantry Bay [in December 1796],
the French Army stayed on the Continent. Two years of waiting sapped the morale of the 
League's rank and file. Lightning raids by the English Army uncovered huge stocks of rebel
munitions and, under threat of revolt, the occupation forces redoubled their normal savagery.
In Dublin, the Honourable Mr. Beresford turned a yeomanry riding school into an interrogation
centre. His whip-wielders beat the League's secrets out of many of its luke-warm supporters.
Something had to be done quickly. Fitzgerald moved for action. At an historic meeting in the
Shakespeare Galleries in Dublin, the date for the rising was set for May 23, 1798. Even as the
top leaders made their plans, there was an informer among them - Thomas Reynolds. Parliament
proclaimed martial law throughout Ireland. Freed from the restraint of the evil magistrates, the
occupation army acted ruthlessly.
 
'Ireland erupted in a spate of burnings, floggings and arrests. Acting on Reynolds' information,
the military raided the house of Oliver Bond [c 1760-1798] and netted the cream of the revolut-
ionaries. Fitzgerald, by chance, was not among them when the trap closed. In the same month
Parliament proclaimed him an outlaw, with £1000 on his head. He refused to leave Ireland, or 
even Dublin. Pamela was expecting a baby - her third. Fitzgerald risked his life and liberty to
go to her. Disguised as a washerwoman he got through the ranks of the watchdogs and stayed
with his wife until her baby was born. Concealment stifled Fitzgerald. Even when he had no
business abroad, he habitually took the air in streets infested with enemies. It was on one such
occasion that Major Sirr made his bid for the reward. Only Fitzgerald's stern orders saved the
Major's life.
'On May 17, six days before the date set for the revolution, Fitzgerald was lying up in the house 
of a feather merchant named Murphy. No one is certain who gave away his hiding place, but
Reynolds probably passed the information to [Francis] Magan the solicitor [1774-1843], who
eventually received the reward. In the late afternoon Fitzgerald, suffering from a heavy cold,
was lying on a bed with his coat off. Without warning, a party headed by Major Swann burst
into the room. Fitzgerald leapt to his feet as Swann fired his pistol. The shot missed. Fitzgerald
wounded Swann twice before the Major ran into the street. His companion, Ryan, was made of
sterner metal. He attacked the rebel with a sword cane and when the flimsy weapon broke,
grappled with him. Fitzgerald freed his dagger and drove it twice into Ryan's stomach, wounding
him mortally. 
'Meanwhile Major Sirr pounded up the stairs to Ryan's aid. He paused in the darkness of the
landing and fired his pistol. The heavy ball hit Fitzgerald in the shoulder and bowled him over.
Before he could rise, Sirr's soldiers beat him to the floor with their musket butts. The Army
examined Fitzgerald's wound, declared it to be not dangerous, and hustled him aboard a ship.
Four days later he was lodged in a cell in London's Newgate prison under heavy guard. The
surgeons were wrong about Fitzgerald's wound. In the squalor of Newgate it became infected.
Shortly afterwards he lapsed into a delirium from which he never rallied. He died on June 4, 
1798.'
Edward FitzGerald, 7th Duke of Leinster
One day in 1930 the tall, dashing but impoverished Duke of Leinster, premier peer of Ireland,
arrived in New York in search of a bride wealthy enough to buy a marriage that would make her
a duchess. A London bookmaker had agreed to advance the Duke £3,000 for expenses, but
insisted on sending the cash to him in instalments so the Duke could not splurge the lot in a
week or two. In return, the bookmaker was to get £20,000 from the £500,000 dowry the Duke
expected to collect. Leinster urgently needed the £500,000 dowry to enable him to buy back
the £1,000,000 estate he had foolishly sold for £67,000, plus £1,000 a year for life.
The Duke did not find a million-dollar bride on that trip, although he did marry a wealthy American
heiress some years later. She became one of the Duke's four wives. After the Duke's death, it
was said of him that 'the Duke's failings were money and women in that order. He had an
insatiable appetite for both and not a clue as to their value.'
Leinster grew up in the tradition of wealthy Guards officers and stage-door johnnies and became
one of the world's best known playboys of the time. Having sold his inheritance, he lived on the
edge of financial ruin for the next 50 years and became the most bankrupted peer in Britain.
Three times he went through the process of bankruptcy and, in his final years, when he no 
longer had a rich wife to help out, he was usually on the run or hiding from his creditors.
He was born Lord Edward FitzGerald, third son of the 5th Duke of Leinster. The eldest son, who
became the 6th Duke, suffered from epilepsy and was confined in a lunatic asylum from 1909;
the second son, Desmond, was killed in action in 1916, leaving Edward as the next heir.
As heir, Edward received an income from his father's trustees which was a mere pittance when
measured against Edward's spending on gambling and wild living.
He was £60,000 in debt when, in 1913, he married May Etheridge, a young actress at the
Shaftesbury Theatre. Even though the trustees increased his allowance after he married, it was
still woefully inadequate by Edward's standards. In order to deal with the money-lenders who 
were hounding him, Edward entered into a contract with the financier, Sir Harry Mallaby-Deeley, 
that condemned him to comparative penury for the rest of his life. Mallaby-Deeley agreed to pay 
Edward's debts of £60,000, give him another £7,000 in cash and an income of £1,000 a year for
life. In return, Edward surrendered to Mallaby-Deeley the life income he would get from the
estate if and when Edward's older brother died and Edward succeeded to the title.
Edward's older brother died in 1922, aged only 34, and the trustees learned of the contract
that Edward had made. They tried to buy back the right to the income, but Mallaby-Deeley
demanded £400,000 which the trustees refused to pay. As a result, Mallaby-Deeley and his
heirs received an annual income of £50,000 and in return paid the new Duke £1,000 a year.
This arrangement lasted until the Duke's death, 54 years later.
The Duke was now forced to finance his lifestyle on a small income, although there were some
occasional windfalls. For example he wagered £3,000 that he could race the London-Aberdeen
express in a car. In a borrowed Rolls-Royce the Duke covered the 515 miles in 13 hours to beat
the train by two hours and win the bet. He also used his name to run a profitable country club
from which he took time off to paddle a canoe round the coast of Britain, collecting another
sizable bet.
In 1930, having divorced his first wife (she died following an accidental dose of sleeping tablets 
in 1935), he departed on his 'wife hunt' to America. Although there was no shortage of 
prospective meal-tickets amongst American heiresses and wealthy widows, he returned home a
single man. Two years later, however, he married his second wife, Rafaelle van Neck Kennedy,
an American divorcee who was visiting England and who had enough money to maintain him in
comfort for the next six years. Although they separated in 1938, they were not divorced until
1946. During this eight year gap, Leinster's financial situation deteriorated rapidly, but in 1944
his situation improved when a wealthy widow and one-time Gaiety Girl, Jessie Wessell, financed
him in buying a hotel in Surrey. As soon as his divorce became final in 1946, they were married.
For the next ten years, the couple lived in France until his third wife left him in 1956.
The Duke was once again in deep financial strife. He moved into a small London flat where he
got to know the building's caretaker, Mrs Vivien Conner. They lived as man and wife until they
were legally married in 1965. The Duke was still trying to hold off his creditors when the couple
moved to Rye in 1963 where they opened a teashop.
For the next 11 years, the couple lived in a succession of humble lodgings until 8 March 1976
when the Duke decided to end his continual struggle. In their tiny London bed-sit, while his
wife was taking a bath, the Duke took an overdose of sleeping pills and was dead on arrival
at hospital.
                                             *******************
On 9 July 1977, the following article appeared in 'The Times', written by Philip Howard.
'A mysterious claimant turning up from California to reclaim an ancient title and an inheritance
perhaps not unadjacent to £10m sounds the sort of stuff that Victorian romances (or, for that
matter, Hollywood dreams) are built on. However, a story to this effect is to be published next
year not by a racy publisher of Gothic romances, but by Debrett's Peerage Ltd.,meticulous
chronicler and genealogist of the upper classes. It concerns the Duke of Leinster, the Premier
Duke, Marquess and Earl of Ireland. And it has wicked uncles, changelings substituted for rightful
heirs, an imposter locked away from the world for 13 years in a lunatic asylum, vast wealth and 
the other ingredients of cheap fiction. But in this case it may not be fiction.
'The FitzGeralds, Barons of Offaly, later Earls of Kildare, later still Dukes of Leinster, have owned
great tracts of Ireland since before 1203. The monkey on their crest commemorates the tradition
that a pet ape saved an infant Earl of Kildare from a fire in the fourteenth century. It is also
symbolically apt, for the FitzGeralds have always been a family with a simian penchant for 
mischief. Thomas, the tenth Earl, and his five uncles, were hanged, drawn and quartered at
Tyburn by Henry VIII.
'The recent official history of the family runs as follows. The 5th Duke died in 1893. He was
succeeded by his eldest son, Maurice, aged six. While Maurice was a minor, his estates were
controlled by his uncles. Just before he came of age in 1909 [sic - this should be 1908], he was
committed as a dangerous lunatic to Craighouse, a large asylum in Edinburgh, where he died
unmarried in 1922. Desmond, his brother next in line, had been killed on active service in France
in 1916.
'Hence the titles passed to the younger brother, Edward. Edward, the seventh Duke, had a 
picaresque track record, even for a FitzGerald: three bankruptcies; four wives; in the 1920s,
in order to pay off his debts, he sold his life interest in the Dukedom to Mallaby-Deeley, the
founder of the Fifty Shilling Tailors. The seventh Duke died in poverty two years ago, a suicide
in a Pimlico bed-sitter. He had been succeeded officially by Gerald, Marquess of Kildare, now the
eighth duke: the son of his first marriage, a company chairman who runs a flying school at 
Oxford airport.
'Such is the official line. Enter, pursued by solicitors, genealogists and private detectives, the
Californian claimant. A man died in California in 1967 calling himself Maurice Francis FitzGerald.
He claimed to be the rightful Duke of Leinster since 1922, although he made the claim only to his
immediate family. His son, Leonard, a school-teacher, aged 50, has inherited his belief that he is
the rightful Duke of Leinster, and is pursuing the claim. He has enough evidence, and there is
enough doubt about the official version to persuade Debrett's and other specialists in the field
that there is a case worth investigating.
'Mr Harold Brooks-Baker, managing director of Debrett's, says: 'The strength and respectability
of the Upper House of any country rest on the validity of the claim of each holder of a seat in
that house. It is not for Debrett's  to say that the present Duke of Leinster is or is not the
rightful holder of that office. It is simply our duty to provide the public with all the relevant
information. We intend to publish all the facts in this case in a completely unbiased volume.'
'Some of the facts that researchers have turned up are suggestive; some are distinctly fishy;
and all, as most things to do with the FitzGeralds are, are appropriately odd. Documents and
photographs have disappeared. People who were always considered well, turned out to be 
extremely unhealthy. And a tremendous fortune has disappeared; some would say dissipated
by an unrightful heir.
'The details of the mystery are dark, tangled and not susceptible to summary in so short a piece
of exposition as a newspaper article. They include hair-raising evidence about the identity and
character of the unhappy inmate of Craighouse. The sixth Duke is recorded as having attended
Eton from 1900 to 1904. His death certificate records that he was an epileptic from 1897
onwards: the school insists that no child with such a history of epilepsy would have been
admitted to Eton at that time.
 
'The supposed Duke was declared insane in 1909, and from that date until his death he never
left Craighouse. So what was the Court Circular published in The Times on March 11, 1910
doing recording that 'the Duke of Leinster will shortly arrive in England from abroad.'?
'Mr John Ford, a researcher who specializes in legal detective work and is writing the Leinster
book for Debrett's with Mr Michael Estorick, knows as much about the affairs of the FitzGerald
family as anyone alive and most of the inmates of wherever Leinsters go when they die. He has
spent a year examining the story and photographs of the Californian claimant and says 'Our
conclusions are that he had an intimate knowledge of the whole FitzGerald family, and it had
to be a personal knowledge, Some of the details he knew could not possibly have been culled
through the conventional channels of research, however diligent.'
'These are deep waters. Who was the unfortunate man who died in Edinburgh? Do so many
missing documents indicate an old conspiracy to hide the facts, or are they coincidence?
How did the Californian know so much about the old Duke and his family? Why did the
Californian never pursue the claim himself, and leave it to his children? What was the terrible
family scandal (illegitimacy?) that he spoke of that prevented him from pursuing it; and, if he
was a fraud, why did he not make more out of it by telling others than his immediate family?'
                                             *******************
The book referred to in the article above was eventually published under the title 'Heirs and
Graces: The Claim to the Dukedom of Leinster' by Michael Estorick (Weidenfeld Nicolson, London
1981.)
The claim dragged on until April 2007, when it was eventually dismissed.
William Sydney Clements, 3rd Earl of Leitrim
Leitrim succeeded to the earldom on the last day of 1854. Over the next twenty years, he
became a model for unpopular landlords in Ireland and eventually paid for it with his life.
Until the passing of the Land Act in 1870, which, for the first time, gave tenants the right
to compensation for any improvements they had made to their holdings, Irish landlords
could, and often did, eject tenants without any reason and without payment for improvements.
When the Act went through, many landlords embarked upon a campaign to destroy the 
tenants' gains by carrying out mass ejections and thousands of small Irish farmers suddenly
found themselves without food, shelter and the means to earn a living.
In a desperate attempt to protect themselves, ejected tenants formed a secret society,
known as the Riband Lodge. Its first article was that 'in no case shall land be taken from a
tenant except for non-payment of rent.' The Ribandmen embarked on a terror campaign,
burning land agents' offices and intimidating any tenant who did not conform to their code.
Leitrim threw himself into the task of improving his property and stamping out the Ribandmen.
He let it be known that any infringement of his rules, no matter how trivial, would be punished
severely. On the other hand, if his tenants did as they were told, they would have the advant-
age of low rents. This did not impress his tenants; nor did the Earl's insistence on the 'droit de
seigneur' over the young girls on his estates. His tenants soon found that Leitrim's ideas were
illogical. For example, he hated goats, and if he caught a tenant keeping a goat, he either shot
the goat or evicted the tenant, as the mood took him. Once evicted, no amount of pleading
would change his mind. On one occasion, a family he had evicted were starving and the local
clergyman pleaded with the Earl to change his mind. Leitrim replied that, 'I would not give you a
blanket to cover their bones.'
He was just as harsh with his fellow peers. He quarrelled with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the
Earl of Carlisle, so fiercely that when Carlisle attempted to obtain lodging at an inn on Leitrim's
estate, Leitrim ordered the manager of the inn to slam the door in Carlisle's face.
No one denied that Leitrim set about to improve his estates. He built roads, houses and schools,
but he was so strongly disliked that he often had trouble in attracting new tenants to replace
those he had evicted, with the result that much of his estate became grazing land.
On 2 April 1878, Leitrim left his house to visit his solicitor; he had 80 evictions pending and he
wanted to make sure that all arrangements had been made. With him in his carriage were the
driver, Buchanan, and his clerk, Meekins. His valet, Kincaid, followed behind in another carriage,
but the horse became slightly lame and fell behind. Leitrim's carriage had just entered Cratlagh
Wood when two men leapt from the ditch at the side of the road and jumped into the carriage.
The first shot shattered Leitrim's chest and he was then battered with the stock of the gun,
which broke his arm and smashed his skull. Buchanan and Meekins were both shot in the head.
By the time the valet arrived, the assailants were in a rowing boat making for the opposite
shore of the nearby bay. Although police were soon on the scene and a number of rewards were
offered, no result was forthcoming. 
Leitrim was buried on 10 April at St. Michan's Church in Dublin. A crowd had gathered outside 
the church some hours before the funeral service and it grew more restive as time went by, 
until some 300 booing and hissing Irishmen blocked the street. When Leitrim's coffin was carried 
from the church, the crowd surged forward and the chief mourners, the pallbearers and 20 police
were pinned against the church wall. The mob made a determined rush to get to Leitrim's body 
in order to tear it to pieces, but were prevented from doing so by the arrival of police 
reinforcements. The demonstration continued during the actual burial and the mourners were 
forced to escape by a side-door.
Meanwhile, police investigating the murders had what promised to be two good clues. The
first of these was a leaf torn from a copybook, but it was found that the copybook had been
lost before the murder had taken place. The other clue was several strands of red hair clutched
in Leitrim's hand. Word of this clue got around, and by the following day every farmer within a
20-mile radius of the crime had been shaved bald, making it impossible for the police to identify
whose hair it may have been.
Eventually, five suspects were arrested, but the evidence at their trial was so circumstantial
that they were all acquitted. Subsequent investigations met with a blank wall of silence and,
although there was little doubt that the names of the killers were known to a number of
people, no one was ever punished for the murders.
Francis Patrick Clements, brother of the 5th Earl of Leitrim
Standard peerage reference works show that Francis Patrick Clements, younger brother of the
5th Earl of Leitrim, died about 20 May 1907, aged only 21. On that date, Clements disappeared
from the house in which he was staying, and was never again seen by any of his family and
friends.
The 'New York Times' of 12 July 1907 states that 'The Earl of Leitrim gave an interview this
afternoon [11 July] to a reporter who wanted to ask him about the story from America cabled
here, that his brother, the Hon. Francis Patrick Clements, had worked his way to New York as a
stoker. "My brother," said the Earl, "who is entirely of independent means, was very anxious to
make his own living, and leaving home several weeks ago, he said it was his intention to go
abroad to get work. He was not in debt or in any trouble when he left, and we have every 
reason to believe that he is on the American continent. Undoubtedly he has the earnest desire
to earn his own living, as he refused to take more than a few pounds with him."
A further report in the 'New York Times' of 8 March 1908 states that:-
'A man who died at the Kansas City General Hospital on Feb. 19, and was buried unidentified, is
believed to have been Francis Patrick Clements, 23 years old, brother and heir of Charles
Clements, Earl of Leitrim, Donegal, Ireland. The body was exhumed this afternoon, and it 
answers the description of Francis Patrick Clements.
'The young man took a room at a lodging house in January. He had little to say of himself except
that his home was in England, and that he had come to Kansas City from New York. During his
stay at the lodging house he pawned nearly all of his personal effects. He was taken ill of
pneumonia, and was removed to the General Hospital, where he died without telling anything
further of himself. He went under the name of Herbert Domican.
'Recently a circular letter from the Salvation Army Headquarters in New York City, containing a
description of the missing brother of Lord Leitrim, who disappeared in May, 1907, was published.
A chambermaid in the rooming house where Domican had stayed recognized the description
and informed Salvation Army officials. To-day a photograph and a full description of Clements
were received.
'The chambermaid felt sure that the photograph was that of Domican and the body was 
exhumed. It answered the description.'
In the Melbourne 'Argus' of 8 March 1911, it was reported that 'An inquiry is taking place in the
Isle of Wight concerning the identity of a body buried in the cemetery of Bonchurch. The man
committed suicide, and was buried without any discovery having been made as to who he was.
It is now alleged that he was Francis Patrick Clements, second brother of the Earl of Leitrim, and
heir presumptive to the title through the death some years ago of his elder brother. Mr Clements
has been missing since 1907.' The reference to the death of his elder brother must refer to that
of Robert Clements, the second son of the 4th Earl of Leitrim - Francis was the third son.
Yet another report in the 'New York Times' of 20 August 1911 includes the following 
statements:-
'The Earl of Leitrim's brother, the Hon. Patrick Francis Clements, while serving as a sub-
Lieutenant of the royal navy on the Pacific coast of America, became imbued with the 
conviction that this country was a land of magnificent opportunities, provided one started from
the bottom. Accordingly, on returning to England, he resigned from the service and, with a view 
of preparing himself for his future career over here, secured employment as a dock-hand at
Southampton. [Clements was in the Royal Navy between 1898 and 1906].
'After working there for a time, he shipped as a stoker on board the American liner St. Louis, in
June 1907, under the name of Sloan. It is recalled by his fellow stokers that he shovelled coal
with a zeal and celerity astonishing in a green hand, and was very popular with them.
'Reaching New York, he was offered a permanent job by the chief engineer of the St. Louis, but
declined it on the ground that he intended to work on a cattle ranch. From that day forth, until
now, that is to say, for more than four years, nothing has been heard of him, although his
brother, Lord Leitrim, has spent many thousands of dollars in searching for his whereabouts.'
In April 1917, the Earl of Leitrim presented a motion to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Court
for leave to presume the death of his younger brother, as reported in 'The Times' of 3 April 
1917:-
'Mr. Bayford, for the applicant (the Earl of Leitrim, brother of the presumed deceased), said that
the Hon. Francis Patrick Clements was born in September, 1885, and joined the Navy in 1898,
and remained in the service until 1906. During most of the time he was stationed on the Pacific
coast. In the autumn of 1906 he developed lung trouble, and he retired from the Navy. He went
through an open-air cure at Penmaenmawr and he recovered. In the winter of 1906-1907 he
lived in London but he hunted in different parts of the country. In the spring of 1907 he was 
very depressed, and on May 20, 1907, he came up to London from Eggesford, with a sister, and
went to stay at the house of a Mrs. Sherlock, in Clapham. On that day he wrote to his sister:-
"My dear Maude - I cannot stay here any longer, for I am too thoroughly bad through and 
through to live in a Christian house, for I am no Christian and I simply cannot sit and listen to
these true people talking about the Saviour, thinking all the time that I am one of them. I 
daresay I shall go abroad, but do not expect to hear from me till you see my handwriting. This
is fearfully cruel to you after all your love to me and kindness in coming up with me, but you
know what a brute I am. It is fearful for Mrs. Sherlock, but it would be worse if I stay on. But
cheer up about me for I am all right, and tell those at Eggesford the same. - best love, Paddy."
[A similar letter to Mrs. Sherlock was also placed in evidence.]
'Inquiries were instituted at once and the police were communicated with, but no trace of Mr.
Clements could be found. The case had been extensively advertised, and it was hoped at one 
time that Mr. Clements was in America. His banking account had not been dealt with since.
'Mr. Justice Low gave leave to presume the death as having occurred on or since May 20, 1907.'
Clements's presumed death was later confirmed by the High Court of Ireland in January 1957, 
the judge noting that Clements appeared to be in a very unstable mental condition at the time
of his disappearance, and that he had written letters which indicated that he appeared to 
regard himself as unfit and unworthy to live among Christian people.
Until about April 2008, there existed a Wikipedia entry on Francis Patrick Clements, which stated
that he 'was the son of Robert Bermingham Clements, 4th Earl of Leitrim and Lady Winifred Coke.
He disappeared from the family house in London on 20 May 1907, following a furious 
disagreement with the then Earl.  He was declared judicially dead in 1917 by the Probate Division.
In reality he appears to have died in about 1908 in India, after marrying and producing a son.
Although he was the heir apparent, he did not use the courtesy title. He married HRH Princess
Tatiana Konstantinovna of Russia on 24 June 1907 in India. The marriage was morganatic. Tsar
Nicholas II did not recognise it. Nor did the Clements family.'
This Wikipedia entry was removed around April 2008, presumably because it supplied no 
references to the information contained within it. In any event, the veracity of the entry is
largely undermined by at least three glaring errors. 
* Evidence tendered to the Court at the time of the presumption of death in 1907 showed that
   Clements had disappeared from the house of Mrs. Sherlock, and not from the family house.
* At the time of his disappearance he was not the heir apparent to the titles - he was merely 
   the heir presumptive. His older brother, the Earl, was only 27 and married at the time of the
   disappearance, and any son subsequently born to him would become the heir apparent.
* Francis Clements, as the brother of the Earl, had no right whatsoever to any courtesy title,
   which can only be granted to a male heir directly descended from the holder of the title - i.e.
   a son or grandson of the 5th Earl, but not to a younger brother.
* Although not impossible, it seems to me to be very unlikely that Clements could leave London
   on 20 May 1907 and be married in India on 24 June. He would hardly have had time to reach 
   India, let alone find himself a wife, and her a Russian princess?
If asked to choose between the conflicting theories, my money would be on the man who died
in Kansas City from pneumonia, since other evidence shows that Clements had previously
suffered from trouble to his lungs…….but you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Lady Arabella Stuart, daughter of Charles Stuart, Earl of Lennox (creation of 1572)
The following biography of Lady Arabella Stuart appeared in the March 1964 issue of the 
Australian monthly magazine "Parade." 
'A courier delivered a message to King James I of England as he sat at dinner in Whitehall Palace
on September 25, 1615. "Sire;" he said, "the mad woman in the Tower is dead at last." Such 
was the epitaph of Arabella Stuart, whose misfortune it was to be of royal blood. For long years
before, she had been the helpless pawn in a plot to make her Queen of England on the death of
Elizabeth I. Even after James I was established on the throne she was regarded with fear and
suspicion, alternately pampered and insulted but always kept a virtual captive. Her desperate
attempts to escape her destiny by marrying a powerful protector make a romantic episode in
the byways of British history. 
 
'Arabella Stuart was born in 1575, the daughter of Charles Stuart, Earl of Lennox, a direct 
descendant of Queen Margaret of Scotland, the sister of Henry VIII of England. She was
still a beautiful and high­spirited girl when plotters began weaving their schemes around her. 
Every year it became clearer that Elizabeth of England was unlikely to marry and have children.
Her heir in strict succession was James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and
Arabella's uncle, Lord Darnley. Arabella Stuart had no shadow of legal claim to be regarded as 
the Queen's successor, but many English nobles hated the prospect of the throne passing to 
the sickly, slovenly and contemptible Scottish monarch. 
 
'Flattered and as yet unconscious of her danger, Arabella found herself surrounded by factions 
who proposed various powerful suitors for her hand. They included King Henri IV of France and
the Earl of Northumberland. Nothing came of the schemes but in 1590 Queen Elizabeth was
roused to fury by reports that Catholic plotters intended to marry Arabella off to the son of the
Duke of Parma and then put her on the throne with the aid of a Spanish invasion. Only two
years had passed since the defeat of the Armada. The threat of Spain still hung heavily over
England and Elizabeth's council reacted with ruthless vigour. The bewildered 15-year-old
Arabella was seized by order of the Privy Council and hustled away to Hardwick House, the
great Derbyshire mansion of her grandmother, the Dowager Countess of Shrewsbury [qv]. 
 
'Hardwick, with its 700-acre deer park and towering walls, was to be her prison for the next 12
years. The countess, an old dragon who had been married four times and was known as Bess of 
Hardwick, was an unrelenting gaoler. Arabella grew up in lonely seclusion like a precious flower
blossoming in a desert, according to one romantic chronicler. She was watched and spied on
continually and few visitors were allowed to enter Hardwick House. All her childish visions of
thrones and royal suitors had ended in bitter disillusion. She now dreamed only of escape, but 
first she had to find a rescuer powerful and chivalrous enough to brave the wrath of Queen
Elizabeth. 
 
'Arabella had almost been forgotten when in 1602 she smuggled a letter to the Earl of Hertford,
head of the Seymour family, offering to wed his grandson in exchange for the earl's protection.
For months previously she had been planning to escape from Hardwick with the aid of her 
devoted chaplain, Thomas Starkey. But Hertford would have no part in the perilous scheme. He
promptly revealed the letter to the Privy Council. Starkey killed himself when the escape plan 
was foiled and Arabella was transferred to even more rigorous captivity at Wrest House in
Bedfordshire.
'But deliverance was near. On March 24, 1603, Queen Elizabeth died. A courier galloped off to
Edinburgh to inform James VI of Scotland that he was now James I of England. Not a voice was
raised to claim the throne for Arabella Stuart. By the time James reached London in May any
fears of a rising in support of her had vanished. But two more years passed before the timid king
allowed her to leave Wrest and appear at the court in Whitehall.
'Arabella Stuart was then 30 and in the prime of her dazzling beauty. She was "bold, witty and
amorous," an expert musician, and she spoke Latin, French, Spanish and Italian fluently. Soon
she had a train of ardent admirers among the aristocrats at the court. She had inherited little
money from her father, the Earl of Lennox, and her extravagance rapidly piled up a mountain of
debts which she disregarded with regal disdain. After the years of neglect and humiliation her
pride revived with her conquests. "Her fairness and accomplishments are truly remarkable," wrote
the Venetian ambassador Scaramelli. "But she holds very exalted ideas of her relation to His
Majesty." She insisted on being treated as a royal princess and outraged court officials by trying
to claim precedence over the king's own children until James protested angrily that she had 
"grown into a notorious termagant." Arabella was further embittered by the king's violent 
opposition to her marrying. "It is necessary for State policy that the woman be content to stay
a maid and bear no heirs," one of the royal councillors warned him.
 
'The prospect of perpetual spinsterhood had little appeal for Arabella. In 1609 she made her first
bid for freedom and tried to flee to Scotland with Sir George Douglas, only to be seized from her
coach on the road and brought ignominiously back to London. King James promised her an annual
pension of £1600 and 10,000 crowns to pay her debts if she would behave thereafter. But within
a year she had vanished into the arms of another lover. This time her choice was William 
Seymour, grandson of the Earl of Hertford and brother of the boy she had offered to marry when
she was a prisoner at Hardwick. Seymour was a suitor who had been specially forbidden by King
James to have anything to do with Arabella because of his family's remote kinship with the royal
line. In February 1610 the Privy Council extorted a promise from the couple that they would 
never marry. 
'But on June 22 Arabella and Seymour took a boat down the Thames to Greenwich and were
secretly wed. Only a few weeks later they were betrayed and arrested, Seymour being hurried
to a dungeon in the Tower. His new wife was confined in Lambeth Palace, where she languished
for nine months, vainly bombarding the king with abject pleas for mercy and demands for a writ
of habeas corpus. "She has eaten of the forbidden fruit. Her wanton blood must be reduced!"
said James coldly. Early in 1611 he ordered that she be sent to the custody of the Bishop of 
Durham, far away in the north of England.
'She set out with her escort in March but got only as far as Barnett in Middlesex before she
collapsed from sickness and despair. There were rumours that she had given birth to a child but,
if so, the fact was never publicly made known. The king allowed her to return to London and she
remained in apathetic gloom until, in June 1611, she was dramatically roused by the news that
Seymour had escaped from the Tower and was being aided to flee to France. Once more she
eluded her gaolers. Disguised in male clothing and with a handful of faithful friends she made her
way to the coast and succeeded in boarding a ship bound for Calais.
'By a coincidence worthy of romantic fiction the ships bearing Arabella and her husband met in
mid-channel and drew so close that she could see Seymour standing wrapped in his cloak on
deck. Then, according to the contemporary account of her life, "a great wind arose and 
prevented them from seeing each other ever more." Seymour's ship fought its way on in the
teeth of the storm to Ostend. The other was driven back on the English coast. Before Arabella
had the chance to embark again her identity was discovered and she was arrested and handed
over to the royal officers. 
 
'The king's wrath was implacable. She begged to be allowed to join her husband in exile. The
queen and many powerful courtiers added their pleas for mercy. Tears and prayers were equally
fruitless. Though James shrank from the final brutality of having Arabella beheaded, he was 
determined that she should become dead to the world of busy, intriguing humanity.
'So Arabella Stuart made her journey down the Thames by barge, beneath the grim battlements
of Traitors Gate and into the Tower of London. There, a pitiful victim of the "State policy" of
dynastic kings, she lingered out the four remaining years of her life. It became dangerous to 
even mention her name at the court of Whitehall. She was permitted considerable comfort in her
quarters in the Tower but visitors found her declining rapidly into weakness and despair. Her
once-radiant beauty had disappeared. She scarcely touched food and drink. Gradually her
melancholy deepened into madness and she was reported hopelessly insane when death ended
her woes on September 25, 1615. 
 
'Once she was dead and no longer an object of fear, King James could afford to be magnanim-
ous. Her body was brought from the Tower with great pomp and buried beside the magnificent
tomb of Mary Queen of Scots in Westminster Abbey. A year later her husband, William Seymour,
felt it safe to return to England, where he was received with favour by the king and found a 
completely acceptable second wife in the daughter of the Earl of Essex.'
William Hesketh Lever,1st Viscount Leverhulme, of The Western Isles in the Counties of
Inverness and Ross and Cromarty
I have deliberately included the full wording shown in the London Gazette in relation to Lord
Leverhulme's promotion to a viscountcy in 1922. Following the creation of the viscounty, there
appeared this article in "The Times" on 3 February 1923:-
'The protest of the Gaelic Society of Inverness against the assumption by Lord Leverhulme of
the title "of the Western Isles" was communicated to the Prime Minister.
'Mr. Bonar Law's secretary, in acknowledging the resolution, says that the Prime Minister, in
consequence of other letters which he received, containing representations similar to those
made by the Gaelic Society, caused inquiry to be made recently, and finds that the King had
approved a submission, based on the recommendation of the College of Arms, under which
Lord Leverhulme was created "Viscount Leverhulme of the Western Isles in the Counties of
Inverness and Ross and Cromarty," and Letters-Patent were issued accordingly. In these
circumstances Mr. Bonar Law regrets that it is now too late to take any action in regard to
the matter; but he points out that Lord Leverhulme's title, as approved, is "Viscount Leverhulme"
and that the addition of the words "of the Western Isles in the Counties of Inverness and Ross
and Cromarty," is a descriptive designation which does not form part of the title itself.
'Our Edinburgh correspondent states that it was hoped by the Highland Societies that Sir James
Balfour Paul, Lyon King of Arms in Scotland, would take cognizance of the matter. He has
stated that the title "Lord of the Isles" belonged to the Prince of Wales, and that it was
unfortunate that the style of dignity to be conferred on Lord Leverhulme was not submitted to
the Scottish Court of Heraldry.'
Unfortunately for the credibility of the above article, it makes one major error. Reference to the
London Gazette of 12 December 1922 [issue 32776, page 8793] shows an entry which reads
"William Hesketh, Baron Leverhulme, to be Viscount Leverhulme, of The Western Isles, in the
Counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty." The difference between the title shown in the
London Gazette and the article above is small, but absolutely vital - i.e. the presence of a 
comma after "Viscount Leverhulme."
Whenever a peerage is created, the patent for the creation contains a territorial designation.
In this instance, the words "of The Western Isles, in the Counties of Inverness and Ross and
Cromarty" are the territorial designation, and such words do not form part of the peerage 
title. The title in this case is merely Viscount Leverhulme, i.e. the words preceding the comma.
But, I hear you say, there are any number of peerages where the title is in the form of "Lord
X of Y." Many of these titles have been chosen by the person receiving the peerage. For
example, many former MPs who have been raised to the peerage have incorporated into their
titles the constituency they formerly represented; others choose to include their place of birth
or residence in their titles. But by far the most common reason, at least in modern times, for 
the form "Lord (or Lady) X of Y" is to distinguish between two or more peerages of the same 
name. For example, as at February 2013, there are four Barons Smith and two Baronesses 
Smith, each of whom have additional words in their title so as to distinguish between them.
Even with this additional wording, each of them has a territorial designation - for example,
Baron Smith of Clifton is "Baron Smith of Clifton, of Mountsandel in the County of Londonderry,"
but his title is only that portion before the comma. An example of a peerage title incorporating
a former MP's constituency is Baron Howell of Guildford, who is "Baron Howell of Guildford, of
Penton Mewsey in the County of Hampshire," but, again, his title is only that portion before
the comma - i.e. Baron Howell of Guildford.
The claim to the Earldom of Lindsay which was featured in Australian newspapers 
in 1913
Reference to 'Burke's Peerage' will show that, on the death of the 10th Earl of Lindsay in 1894,
the peerages were inherited by the late Earl's second cousin once removed, David Clark 
Bethune. The same reference work also reveals that the 10th Earl had a younger brother, 
Henry James Hamilton Bethune, who is shown as having died at Marseilles on 5 July 1862 at
the young age of 28.
The first intimation of any claim to the title appeared in a number of Australian papers in 
January 1913. The following typical report is taken from 'The West Australian' of 17 January
of that year.
'In an unpretentious wooden villa at Albert Park [an inner suburb of Melbourne], surrounded 
by flower beds intersected by a vine trellis, lives a distinguished-looking old gentleman, who,
according to his statement, is the rightful Earl of Lindsay, the head of the famous Scottish
family of that name. Three years ago he married the widow of the late Mr. John Close, of
South Africa. For three years Mrs. Bethune Lindsay remained in ignorance of her husband's 
birth. Then, by some chance, she found in Burke's Peerage that Henry James Hamilton, the
second son of the Earl of Lindsay, born on 8th June, 1834, died at Marseilles on July 5, 1862,
leaving no issue. Mrs. Lindsay taxed her husband with his ancestry, and he admitted it. Mrs.
Lindsay says that Henry James Hamilton did not die at Marseilles, although he came near to
it, but his cousin, David Clark Bethune, has assumed, and according to De Brett [sic], assumed
without official authority the surname and arms of Bethune in lieu of those of Lindsay [this is
confirmed in his entry in 'Burke's Peerage'].
"I may," began the claimant in an interview today, "begin with the explanation that it is only
a very strange series of circumstances that has caused me to break the silence of many years.
To make the whole thing clear let me say that when I was about 10 years of age I joined the
Royal Navy in the capacity of a midshipman. Later on, when I had risen to the rank of 
lieutenant, I served under my uncle Admiral Bethune [1802-1884]. After a bad smash I returned
to England, and a strong attachment sprang up between a little lady and myself. My family
considered her beneath me, and made my life well nigh unbearable. Three medical men said I
would never be strong again, and to make a long story short, I came to Australia five years
later. 
"I went as overseer to a station, Cannawigra [there is today a cattle breeding operation at
Cannawigra, in South Australia]. During my stay there I received a copy of 'The Scotsman,'
which contained a photograph of my brother, the tenth Earl of Lindsay, who died in 1894. 
At about the same time a gentleman named Hayes visited Australia with the object of trying
to locate me, it having come to the knowledge of my family that I had not died, as stated in 
Burke's Peerage, at Marseilles in 1862. My identity was unknown to Mr. Hayes. I met him
several times, and learned from him first hand about his quest. He little thought, I suppose, that
I was the long-lost member of the family. I am an old man, and the loneliness used to affect me
when I lived in Gippsland [a district of the state of Victoria]. I could not stand it without a
change, and so I came to Melbourne for a holiday and stayed at a boarding-house, and among
the other lodgers was the lady who is now my wife. I never expected to marry, and even though
I have a partner now I will never have a son. I never had any intention of publishing to the world
the story of my chequered career, but for the sake of my wife I have yielded reluctantly to the
actual position being made known. The present Earl is my cousin, but he holds the position 
without official authority. I expect to leave for England in March, and on my arrival in the old
land I will do my best to find old folks who might possibly remember me, and to make myself
known to the remnants of my family."
Apart from an article which appeared in 'The Washington Post' on 14 March 1913, which largely
repeats the information published in Australian newspapers, I have been unable to find any
further references to this potential claim. 
Copyright @ 2003-2014  Leigh Rayment