PEERAGE
Last updated 26/11/2024
     Date Rank Order Name Born Died  Age
RENDEL
30 Mar 1894 B 1 Stuart Rendel 2 Jul 1834 4 Jun 1913 78
to     Created Baron Rendel 30 Mar 1894
4 Jun 1913 MP for Montgomeryshire 1880-1894
Peerage extinct on his death
RENDELL OF BABERGH
24 Oct 1997 B[L] 1 Ruth Barbara Rendell 17 Feb 1930 2 May 2015 85
to     Created Baroness Rendell of Babergh
2 May 2015 for life 24 Oct 1997
Peerage extinct on her death
RENDLESHAM
For information on the Great Thellusson Will
Case,see the note at the foot of this page
1 Feb 1806 B[I] 1 Peter Isaac Thellusson 13 Oct 1761 16 Sep 1808 46
Created Baron Rendlesham 1 Feb 1806
MP for Midhurst 1795-1796, Malmesbury 1796-
1802,Castle Rising 1802-1806 and Bossiney 
1807-1808
16 Sep 1808 2 John Thellusson 12 Sep 1785 3 Jul 1832 46
3 Jul 1832 3 William Thellusson 6 Jan 1798 13 Sep 1839 41
13 Sep 1839 4 Frederick Thellusson 6 Jan 1798 6 Apr 1852 54
MP for Suffolk East 1843-1852
6 Apr 1852 5 Frederick William Brook Thellusson 9 Feb 1840 9 Nov 1911 71
MP for Suffolk East 1874-1885
9 Nov 1911 6 Frederick Archibald Charles Thellusson 8 Jun 1868 4 Jul 1938 70
4 Jul 1938 7 Percy Edward Thellusson 30 Oct 1874 11 Dec 1943 69
11 Dec 1943 8 Charles Anthony Hugh Thellusson 15 Mar 1915 9 Oct 1999 84
9 Oct 1999 9 Charles William Brooke Thellusson 10 Jan 1954
RENFREW OF KAIMSTHORN
24 Jun 1991 B[L] 1 Andrew Colin Renfrew 25 Jul 1937 24 Nov 2024 87
to Created Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
24 Nov 2024 for life 24 Jun 1991
Peerage extinct on his death
RENNARD
21 Jul 1999 B[L] 1 Christopher John Rennard 8 Jul 1960
Created Baron Rennard for life 21 Jul 1999
RENNELL
1 Mar 1933 B 1 Sir James Rennell Rodd 9 Nov 1858 26 Jul 1941 82
Created Baron Rennell 1 Mar 1933
MP for St.Marylebone 1928-1932.  PC 1908
26 Jul 1941 2 Francis James Rennell Rodd 25 Oct 1895 14 Mar 1978 82
14 Mar 1978 3 John Adrian Tremayne Rodd 28 Jun 1935 9 Dec 2006 71
9 Dec 2006 4 James Roderick David Tremayne Rodd 9 Mar 1978
RENTON
11 Jul 1979 B[L] 1 Sir David Lockhart-Mure Renton 12 Aug 1908 24 May 2007 98
to     Created Baron Renton for life 11 Jul 1979
24 May 2007 MP for Huntingdonshire 1945-1979. Minister
of State,Home Office 1961-1962.  PC 1962
Peerage extinct on his death
RENTON OF MOUNT HARRY
9 Jun 1997 B[L] 1 Ronald Timothy Renton 28 May 1932 25 Aug 2020 88
to Created Baron Renton of Mount
25 Aug 2020 Harry for life 9 Jun 1997
MP for Sussex Mid 1974-1997. Minister of
State,Foreign and Commonwealth Office
1985-1987. Minister of State,Home Office
1987-1989. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Treasury 1989-1990. Minister for the Arts
1990-1992.  PC 1989
Peerage extinct on his death
RENWICK
23 Dec 1964 B 1 Sir Robert Burnham Renwick,2nd baronet 4 Oct 1904 30 Aug 1973 68
Created Baron Renwick 23 Dec 1964
For further information on this peer,see the
note at the foot of this page
30 Aug 1973 2 Harry Andrew Renwick 10 Oct 1935 2 Aug 2020 84
2 Aug 2020  3 Robert James Renwick 19 Aug 1966
RENWICK OF CLIFTON
26 Sep 1997 B[L] 1 Sir Robin William Renwick 13 Dec 1937 4 Nov 2024 86
to Created Baron Renwick of Clifton for life
4 Nov 2024 26 Sep 1997
Peerage extinct on his death
REVELSTOKE
30 Jun 1885 B 1 Edward Charles Baring 13 Apr 1828 17 Jul 1897 69
Created Baron Revelstoke 30 Jun 1885
17 Jul 1897 2 John Baring 7 Sep 1863 19 Apr 1929 65
Lord Lieutenant Middlesex 1926-1929.  PC 1902
19 Apr 1929 3 Cecil Baring 12 Sep 1864 26 Jan 1934 69
26 Jan 1934 4 Rupert Baring 8 Feb 1911 18 Jul 1994 83
18 Jul 1994 5 John Baring 2 Dec 1934 5 Jun 2003 68
5 Jun 2003 6 James Cecil Baring 16 Aug 1938 7 Feb 2012 73
7 Feb 2012 7 Alexander Rupert Baring 9 Apr 1970
RHAYADER
25 Jan 1932 B 1 Leifchild Stratten Leif-Jones 16 Jan 1862 26 Sep 1939 77
to     Created Baron Rhayader 25 Jan 1932
26 Sep 1939 MP for Appleby 1905-1910,Rushcliffe 1910-1918
and Camborne 1923-1924 and 1929-1931  PC 1917
Peerage extinct on his death
RHODES
14 Sep 1964 B[L] 1 Hervey Rhodes 12 Aug 1895 11 Sep 1987 92
to     Created Baron Rhodes for life 14 Sep 1964
11 Sep 1987 MP for Ashton under Lyne 1945-1964. 
Lord Lieutenant Lancashire 1968-1971
PC 1969  KG 1972
Peerage extinct on his death
RHONDDA
28 Jan 1916 B 1 David Alfred Thomas 26 Mar 1856 3 Jul 1918 62
to     Created Baron Rhondda 28 Jan 1916
3 Jul 1918 and Viscount Rhondda 19 Jun 1918
19 Jun 1918 V 1 For details of the special remainder included in the
creation of the Viscountcy of 1918,see the note 
at the foot of this page
MP for Merthyr Tydfil 1888-1910. President
of the Local Government Board 1916-1917.
Minister of Food 1917-1918.  PC 1917
On his death the Barony became extinct,
whilst the Viscountcy passed to -
3 Jul 1918 2 Margaret Haig Thomas 12 Jun 1883 20 Jul 1958 75
to     Peerage extinct on her death
20 Jul 1958 For further information on her unsuccessful
petition for a writ of summons to the House of 
Lords,see the note at the foot of this page
RHYL
7 Jul 1970 B[L] 1 Evelyn Nigel Chetwode Birch 18 Nov 1906 8 Mar 1981 74
to     Created Baron Rhyl for life 7 Jul 1970
8 Mar 1981 MP for Flintshire 1945-1950 and Flintshire 
West 1950-1970. Minister of Works 1954-1955
Secretary of State for Air 1955-1957.
Economic Secretary to the Treasury 1957-
1958.  PC 1955
Peerage extinct on his death
RIALTON
26 Dec 1706 V 1 Sidney Godolphin,1st Baron Godolphin 15 Jun 1645 15 Sep 1712 67
Created Viscount Rialton and Earl of 
Godolphin 26 Dec 1706
See "Godolphin"
RIBBLESDALE
26 Oct 1797 B 1 Thomas Lister 11 Mar 1752 22 Sep 1826 74
Created Baron Ribblesdale 26 Oct 1797
MP for Clitheroe 1773-1790
22 Sep 1826 2 Thomas Lister 23 Jan 1790 10 Dec 1832 42
10 Dec 1832 3 Thomas Lister 28 Apr 1828 25 Aug 1876 48
25 Aug 1876 4 Thomas Lister 29 Oct 1854 21 Oct 1925 70
to     PC 1892
21 Oct 1925 Peerage extinct on his death
RIBEIRO
20 Dec 2010 B[L] 1 Sir Bernard Francisco Ribeiro 20 Jan 1944
Created Baron Ribeiro for life 20 Dec 2010
RICCARTOUN
14 Apr 1697 V[S] 1 Lord John Hamilton 26 Jan 1665 3 Dec 1744 79
Created Lord Hillhouse,Viscount
Riccartoun and Earl of Ruglen
14 Apr 1697
See "Ruglen"
RICH
16 Feb 1547 B 1 Sir Richard Rich c 1496 12 Jun 1567
Created Baron Rich 16 Feb 1547
Solicitor General 1533-1536. Speaker of
the House of Commons 1536. Lord
Chancellor 1547-1551
12 Jun 1567 2 Robert Rich c 1538 27 Feb 1581
27 Feb 1581 3 Robert Rich Dec 1559 24 Mar 1619 59
He was created Earl of Warwick (qv) in 1618
with which title this peerage then merged
RICHARD
14 May 1990 B[L] 1 Ivor Seward Richard 30 May 1932 18 Mar 2018 85
to     Created Baron Richard for life 14 May 1990
18 Mar 2018 MP for Barons Court 1964-1974. Lord Privy
Seal 1997-1998   PC 1993
Peerage extinct on his death
RICHARDS OF HERSTMONCEUX
24 Feb 2014 B[L] 1 Sir David Julian Richards 4 Mar 1952
Created Baron Richards of Herstmonceux
for life 24 Feb 2014
Chief of the Defence Staff 2010-2013
RICHARDSON
2 Feb 1979 B[L] 1 Sir John Samuel Richardson,1st baronet 16 Jun 1910 15 Aug 2004 94
to     Created Baron Richardson for life 2 Feb 1979
15 Aug 2004 Peerage extinct on his death
RICHARDSON OF CALOW
3 Aug 1998 B[L] 1 Kathleen Margaret Richardson 24 Feb 1938
Created Baroness Richardson of
Calow for life 3 Aug 1998
RICHARDSON OF DUNTISBOURNE
11 Feb 1983 B[L] 1 Gordon William Humphreys Richardson 25 Nov 1915 22 Jan 2010 94
to     Created Baron Richardson of
22 Jan 2010 Duntisbourne for life 11 Feb 1983
Governor of the Bank of England 1973-1983
PC 1976  KG 1983
Peerage extinct on his death
RICHEMOUNT-GREY
25 Jun 1450 B 1 Thomas Grey Nov 1461
to     Created Baron Richemount-Grey
Nov 1461 25 Jun 1450
He was attainted and the peerage forfeited
RICHMOND
1136 E 1 Alan de Bretagne 15 Sep 1146
Considered to have been created Earl
of Richmond 1136
15 Sep 1146 2 Conan de Bretagne 20 Feb 1171
20 Feb 1171 3 Constance de Bretagne c 1162 Aug 1201
Aug 1201 4 Arthur Plantagenet 29 Apr 1187 3 Apr 1203 15
to     On his death the peerage reverted to the
3 Apr 1203 Crown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
6 Jan 1219 E 1 Peter de Braine c 1190 28 May 1250
to     Created Earl of Richmond 6 Jan 1219
30 Jan 1235 The peerage was forfeited in 1235
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
1 May 1261 E 1 Peter of Savoy 1203 9 Jun 1268 64
to     Created Earl of Richmond 1 May 1261
9 Jun 1268 On his death the peerage reverted to the
Crown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
15 Jul 1268 E 1 John de Bretagne c 1217 8 Oct 1286
Created Earl of Richmond 15 Jul 1268
He immediately surrended the peerage in
favour of -
1268 2 John de Bretagne 4 Jan 1239 18 Nov 1305 66
to     On his death the peerage reverted to the
18 Nov 1305 Crown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
15 Oct 1306 E 1 John de Bretagne 1266 17 Jan 1334 67
Created Earl of Richmond 15 Oct 1306
17 Jan 1334 2 John de Bretagne 8 Mar 1286 30 Apr 1341 55
to     On his death the peerage reverted to the
30 Apr 1341 Crown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
24 Sep 1341 E 1 John de Montfort 1293 26 Sep 1345
to     Created Earl of Richmond 24 Sep 1341
26 Sep 1345 On his death the peerage reverted to the
Crown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
20 Sep 1342 E 1 John Plantagenet 24 Jun 1340 3 Feb 1399 58
to     Created Earl of Richmond 20 Sep 1342
1372 and Duke of Lancaster (qv) 13 Nov 1362
He surrendered the Earldom in 1372
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
20 Jun 1372 E 1 John de Montfort c 1339 2 Nov 1399
to     Created Earl of Richmond 20 Jun 1372
2 Nov 1399 KG 1375
On his death the peerage reverted to the
Crown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
24 Nov 1414 E 1 John Plantagenet,Duke of Bedford 20 Jun 1389 14 Sep 1435 46
to     Created Earl of Richmond 24 Nov 1414
14 Sep 1435 See "Bedford"
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
6 Mar 1453 E 1 Edmund Tudor c 1430 3 Nov 1456
Created Earl of Richmond 6 Mar 1453
3 Nov 1456 2 Henry Tudor 26 Jul 1456 1509 52
to     He was attainted and the peerage forfeited.
1485 He was later Henry VII
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
18 Jun 1525 D 1 Henry Fitzroy 1519 22 Jul 1536 17
to     Created Earl of Nottingham and Duke
22 Jul 1536 of Richmond and Somerset 18 Jun 1525
Illegitimate son of Henry VIII
KG 1525
Peerages extinct on his death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
17 May 1623 D 1 Ludovic Stuart,2nd Duke of Lennox 29 Sep 1574 16 Feb 1624 49
to     Created Baron of Setrington and Earl 
16 Feb 1624 of Richmond 6 Oct 1613, and Earl of
Newcastle upon Tyne and Duke of
Richmond 17 May 1623
KG 1603
Peerages extinct on his death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
8 Aug 1641 D 1 James Stuart,4th Duke of Lennox 6 Apr 1612 30 Mar 1655 42
Created Duke of Richmond 8 Aug 1641
Warden of the Cinque Ports 164-1642.
KG 1633
30 Mar 1655 2 Esme Stuart 2 Nov 1649 10 Aug 1660 10
10 Aug 1660 3 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
Lord Lieutenant Dorset 1660-1672 and Kent
1668-1672  KG 1661
Peerages extinct on his death
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
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 [S] 9 Sep 1675
Illegitimate son of Charles II.  KG 1681 
PC [I] by 1723
27 May 1723 2 Charles Lennox 18 May 1701 8 Aug 1750 49
MP for Chichester 1722-1723. KG 1726
PC 1735
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of this page.
8 Aug 1750 3 Charles Lennox 22 Feb 1735 29 Dec 1806 71
Secretary of State 1766. Lord Lieutenant
Sussex 1763-1806.  PC 1765  KG 1782
29 Dec 1806 4 Charles Lennox 9 Sep 1764 28 Aug 1819 54
MP for Sussex 1790-1806. Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland 1807-1813. Governor General of
Canada 1818-1819.  PC 1807  KG 1812
Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1816-1819
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of this page.
28 Aug 1819 5 Charles Gordon-Lennox 3 Aug 1791 21 Oct 1860 69
MP for Chichester 1812-1819. Postmaster
General 1830-1834. Lord Lieutenant Sussex
1835-1860.  KG 1829  PC 1830
For information on the disappearance of Lord
FitzRoy George Charles Lennox, 2nd son of this 
peer,see the note at the foot of this page
21 Oct 1860 6 Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox 27 Feb 1818 27 Sep 1903 85
Created Earl of Kinrara and Duke of
Gordon 13 Jan 1876
MP for Sussex West 1841-1860. President of
the Poor Law Board 1859. President of the
Board of Trade 1867-1868 and 1885. Lord
President of the Council 1874-1880. 
Secretary of State for Scotland 1885-1886.
Lord Lieutenant Banffshire 1879-1903. Created
Duke of Gordon (qv) 1876.  PC 1859 
KG 1867
27 Sep 1903 7 Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox  (also 2nd Duke
of Gordon) 27 Dec 1845 18 Jan 1928 82
MP for Sussex West 1869-1885 and
Chichester 1885-1888.  KG 1905. Lord
Lieutenant Elgin & Banff 1903-1928
18 Jan 1928 8 Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox  (also 3rd Duke
of Gordon) 30 Dec 1870 7 May 1935 64
Lord Lieutenant Elgin 1928-1935
7 May 1935 9 Frederick Charles Gordon-Lennox  (also 4th Duke 
of Gordon) 5 Feb 1904 2 Nov 1989 85
2 Nov 1989 10 Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox  (also 5th Duke
of Gordon) 19 Sep 1929 1 Sep 2017 87
Lord Lieutenant West Sussex 1990-1994
1 Sep 2017 11 Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox  (also 6th Duke 8 Jan 1955
of Gordon)
RICKETTS
17 Oct 2016 B[L] 1 Sir Peter Forbes Ricketts 30 Sep 1952
Created Baron Ricketts for life 17 Oct 2016
RIDDELL
28 Jan 1920 B 1 Sir George Allardice Riddell,1st baronet 25 May 1865 5 Dec 1934 69
to     Created Baron Riddell 28 Jan 1920
5 Dec 1934 Peerage extinct on his death
RIDEAU
11 Mar 1952 E 1 Harold Rupert Leofric Alexander 10 Dec 1891 16 Jun 1969 77
Created Baron Rideau and Earl Alexander
of Tunis 11 Mar 1952
see "Alexander of Tunis"
RIDLEY
19 Dec 1900 V 1 Sir Matthew White Ridley,5th baronet 25 Jul 1842 28 Nov 1904 62
Created Baron Wensleydale and Viscount 
Ridley 19 Dec 1900
MP for Northumberland North 1868-1885
and Blackpool 1886-1900. Financial 
Secretary to the Treasury 1885-1886. Home
Secretary 1895-1900.  PC 1892
28 Nov 1904 2 Matthew White Ridley 6 Dec 1874 14 Feb 1916 41
MP for Stalybridge 1900-1904
14 Feb 1916 3 Matthew White Ridley 16 Dec 1902 25 Feb 1964 61
25 Feb 1964 4 Matthew White Ridley 29 Jul 1925 22 Mar 2012 86
KG 1992  Lord Lieutenant Northumberland
1984-2000
22 Mar 2012 5 Matthew White Ridley  [Elected hereditary 7 Feb 1958
peer 2013-]
RIDLEY OF LIDDESDALE
28 Jul 1992 B[L] 1 Nicholas Ridley 17 Feb 1929 4 Mar 1993 64
to     Created Baron Ridley of Liddesdale for life
4 Mar 1993 28 Jul 1992
MP for Cirencester and Tewkesbury 1959-1992
Minister of State,Foreign and 
Commonwealth Office 1979-1981. Financial
Secretary to the Treasury 1981-1983. Secretary
of State for Transport 1983-1986. Secretary of
State for the Environment 1986-1989. Secretary
of State for Trade & Industry 1989-1990
PV 1983
Peerage extinct on his death
RIPON
13 Apr 1833 E 1 Frederick John Robinson 30 Oct 1782 28 Jan 1859 76
Created Viscount Goderich 28 Apr 1827
and Earl of Ripon 13 Apr 1833
MP for Carlow 1806-1807 and Ripon 1807-
1827. Vice President of the Board of Trade
1812-1818. President of the Board of
Trade 1818-1823 and 1841-1843. Chancellor
of the Exchequer 1823-1827. Secretary of
State for Colonies 1827 and 1830-1833.
Prime Minister 1827-1828. Lord Privy Seal
1833-1834. President of the Board of 
Control for India 1843-1846.  PC 1812
28 Jan 1859 2 George Frederick Samuel Robinson 24 Oct 1827 9 Jul 1909 81
23 Jun 1871 M 1 Created Marquess of Ripon 23 Jun 1871
MP for Hull 1852-1853, Huddersfield 1853-
1857 and W Riding Yorkshire 1857-1859. 
Secretary for War 1863-1866. Secretary of
State for India 1866. Lord President of the
Council 1868-1873. Viceroy of India 1880-
1884. First Lord of the Admiralty 1886.
Scretary of State for Colonies 1892-1895.
Lord Privy Seal 1905-1908. Lord Lieutenant
N Riding Yorkshire 1873-1906.  PC 1863  KG 1869
9 Jul 1909 2 Frederick Oliver Robinson 29 Jan 1852 22 Sep 1923 71
to     MP for Ripon 1874-1880.
22 Sep 1923 Peerages extinct on his death
RIPPON
26 May 1708 B 1 James Douglas,2nd Duke of Queensberry 18 Sep 1662 6 Jul 1711 48
Created Baron of Rippon,Marquess of
Beverley and Duke of Dover 26 May 1708
see "Dover"
RIPPON OF HEXHAM
5 Oct 1987 B[L] 1 Aubrey Geoffrey Frederick Rippon 28 May 1924 28 Jan 1997 72
to     Created Baron Rippon of Hexham for life
28 Jan 1997 5 Oct 1987
MP for Norwich South 1955-1964 and
Hexham 1966-1987. Minister of Public 
Building and Works 1962-1964. Minister of
Technology 1970. Chancellor of the Duchy
of Lancaster 1970-1972. Secretary of State
for Environment 1972-1974.  PC 1962
Peerage extinct on his death
RISBY
24 Dec 2010 B[L] 1 Richard John Grenville Spring 24 Sep 1946
Created Baron Risby for life 24 Dec 2010
MP for Bury St.Edmunds 1992-1997 and 
Suffolk West 1997-2010
RITCHIE OF BROMPTON
25 Jun 2010 B[L] 1 Shireen Olive Ritchie 22 Jun 1945 24 Apr 2012 66
to     Created Baroness Ritchie of Brompton for life
24 Apr 2012 25 Jun 2010

Peerage extinct on her death

 

 

 
RITCHIE OF DOWNPATRICK
16 Oct 2019 B[L] 1 Margaret Mary Ritchie 25 March 1958
     Created Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick for life
 
 
RITCHIE OF DUNDEE
22 Dec 1905 B 1 Charles Thomson Ritchie 19 Nov 1838 9 Jan 1906 67
Created Baron Ritchie of Dundee
22 Dec 1905
MP for Tower Hamlets 1874-1885,
St.Georges 1885-1892 and Croydon 1895-
1905. President of the Local Government
Board 1886-1892. President of the Board
of Trade 1895-1900. Home Secretary 1900-
1902. Chancellor of the Exchequer 1902-
1903.  PC 1886
9 Jan 1906 2 Charles Ritchie 18 Nov 1866 19 Jul 1948 81
19 Jul 1948 3 John Kenneth Ritchie 22 Sep 1902 20 Oct 1975 73
PC 1965
20 Oct 1975 4 Colin Neville Ower Ritchie 9 Jul 1908 16 Nov 1978 70
16 Nov 1978 5 Harold Malcolm Ritchie 29 Aug 1919 11 Jan 2008 88
11 Jan 2008 6 Charles Rupert Rendall Ritchie 15 Mar 1958
RITCHIE-CALDER
5 Jul 1966 B[L] 1 Peter Ritchie Calder 1 Jul 1906 31 Jan 1982 75
to     Created Baron Ritchie-Calder for life
31 Jan 1982 5 Jul 1966
Peerage extinct on his death
RITHRE
29 Dec 1299 B 1 William de Rithre c 1309
to     Summoned to Parliament as Lord
c 1309 Rithre 29 Dec 1299
Peerage extinct on his death
RIVERDALE
27 Jun 1935 B 1 Sir Arthur Balfour,1st baronet 9 Jan 1873 7 Jul 1957 84
Created Baron Riverdale 27 Jun 1935
7 Jul 1957 2 Robert Arthur Balfour 1 Sep 1901 26 Jun 1998 96
26 Jun 1998 3 Anthony Robert Balfour 23 Feb 1960
RIVERS
6 Feb 1299 B 1 John Rivers c 1311
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Rivers 6 Feb 1299
c 1311 2 John Rivers after 1339
to     Peerage extinct on his death
after 1339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
24 May 1466 E 1 Richard Wydville 12 Aug 1469
Created Baron Rivers 9 May 1448
and Earl Rivers 24 May 1466
KG 1450  Lord High Constable 1467-1469
12 Aug 1469 2 Anthony Wydville 1442 25 Jun 1483 40
KG 1466
25 Jun 1483 3 Richard Wydville c 1449 5 Mar 1491
to     Peerage extinct on his death
5 Mar 1491
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
21 Apr 1641 E[L] 1 Elizabeth Savage 1581 9 Mar 1651 69
to     Created Countess Rivers for life 21 Apr 1641
9 Mar 1651 Peerage extinct on her death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
4 Nov 1626 E 1 Thomas Darcy,3rd Baron Darcy of Chiche c 1565 21 Feb 1640
Created Viscount Colchester 5 Jul
1621 and Earl Rivers 4 Nov 1626
21 Feb 1640 2 John Savage,2nd Viscount Savage c 1603 10 Oct 1654
10 Oct 1654 3 Thomas Savage c 1628 14 Sep 1694
14 Sep 1694 4 Richard Savage c 1654 18 Aug 1712
MP for Wigan 1681 and Liverpool 1689-1694
Lord Lieutenant Cheshire 1695-1703, Lancashire
Jan-Jun 1702 and Essex 1705-1712.  PC 1708
18 Aug 1712 5 John Savage 29 Apr 1665 1735 70
to     Peerage extinct on his death
1735
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
20 May 1776 B 1 George Pitt 1 May 1721 7 May 1803 82
1 Apr 1802 B 1 Created Baron Rivers 20 May 1776 
and 1 Apr 1802
For details of the special remainder included in the
creation of the Barony of 1802,see the note at the 
foot of this page
MP for Shaftesbury 1742-1747 and Dorset
1747-1774. Lord Lieutenant Hampshire 1780-1782
and Dorset 1793-1803
7 May 1803 2 George Pitt 19 Sep 1751 20 Jul 1828 76
to     MP for Dorset 1774-1790
20 Jul 1828 On his death the Barony of 1776 became
extinct whilst the Barony of 1802
passed to -
20 Jul 1828 3 William Horace Pitt-Rivers 2 Dec 1777 23 Jan 1831 53
For further information on the death of this peer,
see the note at the foot of this page
23 Jan 1831 4 George Pitt-Rivers 16 Jul 1810 28 Apr 1866 55
28 Apr 1866 5 Henry Peter Pitt-Rivers 7 Apr 1849 27 Mar 1867 17
27 Mar 1867 6 Horace Pitt-Rivers 12 Apr 1814 31 Mar 1880 65
to     Peerage extinct on his death
31 Mar 1880 For further information on this peer and his first
wife,see the note at the foot of this page
RIVERSDALE
13 Oct 1783 B[I] 1 William Tonson 3 May 1724 4 Dec 1787 63
Created Baron Riversdale 13 Oct 1783
4 Dec 1787 2 William Tonson 8 Dec 1775 3 Apr 1848 72
3 Apr 1848 3 Ludlow Tonson 6 Mar 1784 12 Dec 1861 77
to     Peerage extinct on his death
12 Dec 1861
RIX
27 Jan 1992 B[L] 1 Sir Brian Norman Roger Rix 27 Jan 1924 20 Aug 2016 92
to     Created Baron Rix for life 27 Jan 1992
20 Aug 2016 Peerage extinct on his death
ROBARTES
26 Jan 1625 B 1 Sir Richard Robartes,1st baronet 19 Apr 1634
Created Baron Robartes 26 Jan 1625
19 Apr 1634 2 John Robartes 1606 17 Jul 1685 79
He was created Earl of Radnor (qv) in 1679
with which title this peerage then merged
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
13 Dec 1869 B 1 Thomas James Agar-Robartes 18 Mar 1808 9 Mar 1882 73
Created Baron Robartes 13 Dec 1869
MP for Cornwall East 1847-1868
9 Mar 1882 2 Thomas Charles Agar-Robartes 1 Jan 1844 19 Jul 1930 86
He succeeded to the Viscountcy of Clifden (qv)
in 1899 with which title this peerage then
merged until its extinction in 1974
ROBATHAN
13 Oct 2015 B[L] 1 Andrew Robert George Robathan 17 Jul 1951
Created Baron Robathan for life 13 Oct 2015
MP for Blaby 1992-2010 and Leicestershire
South 2010-2015. PC 2010
ROBBINS
16 Jun 1959 B[L] 1 Lionel Charles Robbins 22 Nov 1898 15 May 1984 85
to     Created Baron Robbins for life 16 Jun 1959
15 May 1984 CH 1968
Peerage extinct on his death
ROBENS OF WOLDINGHAM
28 Jun 1961 B[L] 1 Alfred Robens 18 Dec 1910 27 Jun 1999 88
to     Created Baron Robens of Woldingham for life 
27 Jun 1999 28 Jun 1961
MP for Wansbeck 1945-1950 and Blyth
1950-1960. Minister of Labour and National
Service 1951.  PC 1951
Peerage extinct on his death
ROBERTHALL
28 Oct 1969 B[L] 1 Sir Robert Lowe Hall 6 Mar 1901 17 Sep 1988 87
to     Created Baron Roberthall 28 Oct 1969
17 Sep 1988 28 Oct 1969
Peerage extinct on his death
ROBERTS
11 Feb 1901 E 1 Sir Frederick Sleigh Roberts VC,1st baronet 30 Sep 1832 14 Nov 1914 82
Created Baron Roberts 20 Feb 1892,
and Viscount St.Pierre and Earl 
Roberts 11 Feb 1901
For details of the special remainders included in the
creations of the Viscountcy and Earldom of 1901,
see the note at the foot of this page
Field Marshal 1895.  KP 1897  KG 1901
OM 1902. PC [I] 1895  PC 1901
For further information on this peer and VC
winner, see the note at the foot of this page
On his death in 1914 the Barony became extinct,
while the Viscountcy and Earldom passed to -
14 Nov 1914 2 Aileen Mary Roberts 20 Sep 1870 9 Oct 1944 74
9 Oct 1944 3 Ada Edwina Stewart Lewin 28 Mar 1875 21 Feb 1955 79
to     Peerages extinct on her death
21 Feb 1955
ROBERTS OF BELGRAVIA
1 Nov 2022 B[L] 1 Andrew Roberts 13 Jan 1963
Created Baron Roberts of Belgravia created 1 Nov 2022
ROBERTS OF CONWY
1 Oct 1997 B[L] 1 Sir (Ieuan) Wyn Pritchard Roberts 10 Jul 1930 13 Dec 2013 83
to     Created Baron Roberts of Conwy for life
13 Dec 2013 1 Oct 1997
MP for Conway 1970-1983 and Conwy 1983-
1997. Minister of State,Wales 1987-1994
PC 1991
Peerage extinct on his death
ROBERTS OF LLANDUDNO
15 Jun 2004 B[L] 1 John Roger Roberts 23 Oct 1935
Created Baron Roberts of Llandudno 
for life 15 Jun 2004
ROBERTSON OF FORTEVIOT
14 Nov 1899 B[L] 1 James Patrick Bannerman Robertson 10 Aug 1845 2 Feb 1909 63
to     Created Baron Robertson of Forteviot
2 Feb 1909 for life 14 Nov 1899
MP for Buteshire 1885-1891. Solicitor 
General [S] 1885-1886 and 1886-1889. Lord
Advocate 1889-1891. Lord President of the
Court of Session 1891-1899. Lord of Appeal
in Ordinary 1899-1909.  PC 1888
Peerage extinct on his death
ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE
29 Jun 1961 B 1 Sir Brian Hubert Robertson,2nd baronet 22 Jul 1896 29 Apr 1974 77
Created Baron Robertson of Oakridge
29 Jun 1961
29 Apr 1974 2 William Ronald Robertson 8 Dec 1930 18 Jan 2009 78
18 Jan 2009 3 William Brian Elworthy Robertson 15 Nov 1975
ROBERTSON OF PORT ELLEN
24 Aug 1999 B[L] 1 George Islay McNeill Robertson 12 Apr 1946
Created Baron Robertson of Port Ellen
for life 24 Aug 1999
MP for Hamilton 1978-1997 and Hamilton
South 1997-1999. Sec of State for Defence
1997-1999  PC 1997  KT 2004
ROBINS
10 Jul 1958 B 1 Sir Thomas Ellis Robins 31 Oct 1884 21 Jul 1962 77
to     Created Baron Robins 10 Jul 1958
21 Jul 1962 Peerage extinct on his death
ROBINSON
15 Jul 1947 B 1 Sir Roy Lister Robinson 8 Mar 1883 5 Sep 1952 69
to     Created Baron Robinson 15 Jul 1947
5 Sep 1952 Peerage extinct on his death
ROBOROUGH
24 Jan 1938 B 1 Sir Henry Yarde Buller Lopes,4th baronet 24 Mar 1859 14 Apr 1938 79
Created Baron Roborough 24 Jan 1938
MP for Grantham 1892-1900
14 Apr 1938 2 Massey Henry Edgcumbe Lopes 4 Oct 1903 30 Jun 1992 88
Lord Lieutenant Devonshire 1958-1978
30 Jun 1992 3 Henry Massey Lopes 2 Feb 1940 8 Feb 2015 75
8 Feb 2015 4 Massey John Henry Lopes 22 Dec 1969
ROBSON
7 Oct 1910 B[L] 1 William Snowdon Robson 10 Sep 1852 11 Sep 1918 66
to     Created Baron Robson for life 7 Oct 1910
11 Sep 1918 MP for Bow and Bromley 1885-1886 and
South Shields 1895-1910. Solicitor General
1905-1908. Attorney General 1908-1910.
Lord of Appeal  in Ordinary 1910-1912. 
PC 1910
Peerage extinct on his death
The Great Thellusson Will Case
In 1796 Peter Thellusson, father of the future 1st Baron Rendlesham, signed a will that directed
that the income from his property, amounting to about £5,000 per annum, together with his
personal estate, amounting to over £600,000, be accumulated during the lives of his children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren who were living at the time of his death. His family, who
viewed this will as being absurd, tried to have it set aside in 1798, but the will was held to be
valid. In 1800, future wills of this nature were prevented by the passing of the Accumulation 
Act [often referred to as the Thellusson Act], which limited the length of time during which an
estate could accumulate.
In 1856, following the death of the last surviving grandson, the courts were called upon to 
decide who was entitled to divide the accumulated estate. The following report on the case
appeared in the 'Leeds Mercury' on 11 June 1859:-
'On Thursday morning the House of Lords sat for the first time this session to hear appeals, and
deliver judgment in the important case of Thomas Robarts Thellusson, appellant, v. Abraham 
Wildey Robarts, Edward James Dawkins, Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson, the Right Hon. 
Baron Rendlesham, and Arthur Thellusson, respondents.
'The question in this case arose on the well-known will of Peter Thellusson......which has 
acquired so great a notoriety. The case has been before the House in its present form both in
the session of 1858, and in February of the present year. It will only be necessary to state that
the testator, Peter Thellusson, by his will dated 2nd April, 1796, directed that the rents and
profits of all his large landed property, and any that might be purchased after his death by his
trustees, and all the residue of his personal property, with the profits derived therefrom, should
accumulate during the lives of his three sons and of his grandsons living at or born in due time
after his death; and after the death of the survivor of such sons and grandsons, that an equal
partition should be made of the accumulated property into three lots, one of which should be 
conveyed to the "eldest male lineal descendant" of his eldest son, with remainder to the second
and other sons successively of his eldest son, with remainder to the eldest male lineal
descendant or descendants of his two other sons; that another of the lots should be given to
the eldest male lineal descendant of his second son, with like remainders over; and the third
and remaining lot to be given to the eldest male lineal descendant of his third son.
'At the testator's death he left his three sons surviving him, Peter Isaac (afterwards created
Baron Rendlesham), George Woodford and Charles, and several grandsons. The last surviving
grandson who was living at the death of the testator, and the last of the persons indicated in
the will at whose death the accumulated property was to become divisible, died in February,
1856, and the period for the partition of the property having thus arrived, a question arose as
to who were entitled, as "eldest male lineal descendants." The "male lineal descendants" of
George Woodford, the testator's second son, having become extinct, the property became 
divisible in two portions, one of which was to go to the eldest male lineal descendant of the
testator's eldest son, Peter Isaac, and the other to the like descendant of the testator's
third son, Charles. 
'The present appellant is the second sole surviving son of the testator's son Charles Thellusson, 
and was born in the year 1801, and claimed as the eldest lineal descendant "in point of age,"
one of the portions of the property, as against the respondent, Charles Sabine Augustus
Thellusson, who is the grandson of Charles, the testator's son, who was born in the year 1822,
and who claims as the eldest male lineal descendant in point of line. 
'In short, the whole question involved is whether male lineal descendants eldest in point of age,
or male lineal descendants eldest in the legal and technical sense as being eldest in line, are the
persons designated by the testator to inherit the property. Suits were brought to decide this
question, and the Master of the Rolls [Lord Romilly] decided that Lord Rendlesham is the person
who answers the description in the will of eldest male lineal descendant of the testator's eldest
son, Peter Isaac, and is entitled to one of the lots into which the property was divided; and
that Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson is the person who answers the description of oldest
male lineal descendant of Charles Thellusson, his grandfather, and is entitled to the other lot;
and that Thomas Robarts Thellusson, the appellant, his uncle, although a son of Charles
Thellusson (but not his eldest), who was the father of Charles Sabine Augustus, although he is
now the eldest male lineal descendant of the said Charles in point of years, is not entitled. The
present appeal was then brought and argued before their Lordships, with the assistance of the
Common Law Judges, a majority of whom gave their opinion in favour of the decision of the 
Court below, and against the appellant as eldest male lineal descendant in point of years.
'Lords Cranworth, St. Leonards, Wensleydale and Brougham now delivered their opinions at
length, and were unanimously of opinion - 1st, That the eldest male lineal descendant of the
late Peter Isaac Thellusson was the eldest male heir according to the line of primogeniture,
and not the eldest of age or blood. 2nd, That the person appointed to nominate by the will
was the eldest male heir in primogeniture at the time the succession opened, and not the
eldest of age or blood, 3rd, That the will was not void from uncertainty, and that the next of
kin were excluded.
'Their Lordships unanimously affirmed the decision of the Master of the Rolls, and dismissed the
appeals with costs. The Lord Chancellor [Lord Chelmsford] declined to deliver any formal opinion,
having previously been counsel in the case, until he heard the unanimous opinion of their
Lordships. He then said that in that opinion he entirely concurred.'
Unfortunately for the two final beneficiaries of Peter Thellusson's will, the amount available for
them to inherit had been dramatically reduced to little more than the original amount due to the
legal fees associated with the case. It is often stated that the fictional case of Jarndyce v
Jarndyce in Dickens' "Bleak House" is based upon the Thellusson Will Case.
Sir Robert Burnham Renwick,2nd baronet and later [1964] 1st Baron Renwick
Amidst all the notes in these pages which contain details of scandals, crooks and eccentrics,
it is a pleasure to be able to include notes reflecting the better side of human nature. One such
"good guy" was Robert Burnham Renwick, as demonstrated by this extract from the 'Townsville
Daily Bulletin' of 16 April 1929, reprinted from 'The Daily Chronicle':-
'For gallantry in saving three dogs from drowning in the Avon when in flood, Mr. Robert B. 
Renwick, son of Sir Harry Renwick, Bart., was presented at Kingston-on-Thames with the 
R.S.P.C.A. silver medal for animal life-saving. The official statement says that on December 2,
1928, Mr. Renwick jumped into the Avon, between Stratford and Alveston, Warwickshire to
rescue a Scotch terrier. As the river was flowing fast the dog was being carried away, and 
would have died but for Mr. Renwick. Two bigger dogs becoming excited at seeing "their little
pal in danger," jumped into the river, and could not get out again because of the swollen
stream and steep banks. Mr. Renwick, after rescuing the first dog, went after the other two.
which also were being carried away, and brought them to safety.
'Interviewed, Mr. Renwick said:- "There was no bravery about it. I could not see the little
terrier drowned. The worst of it was the other two dogs in their excitement scamper in on top
of me, but I managed to get the terrier away to the banks and pitched him safely on top
before going after the other dogs, which had got into the same difficulty."
The special remainder to the Viscountcy of Rhondda created in 1918
From the "London Gazette" of 25 June 1918 (issue 30764, page 7484):-
"The King has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, to confer the dignity of a Viscount of the said United Kingdom upon
the Right Honourable David Alfred, Baron Rhondda, by the name, style and title of Viscount
Rhondda of Llanwern, in the County of Monmouth, to hold to him and the heirs male of his body
lawfully begotten and to be begotten; with remainder in default of such issue to his only 
daughter Margaret Haig, wife of Sir Humphrey Mackworth, Baronet, by the name, style and title 
of Viscountess Rhondda of Llanwern aforesaid, and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten
or to be begotten."
Margaret Haig Thomas, Viscountess Rhondda in her own right (2nd in line)
When the 1st Baron Rhondda was raised to a viscountcy in 1918, the letters patent of that
creation contained a special remainder in favour of his daughter, Margaret. See the immediately
preceding note for further details. Following her father's death, and the passing of the Sex
Disqualification (Removal) Act in 1919, she petitioned the House of Lords for a writ of summons 
in 1922. Her petition was initially successful, but was later overturned by a decision which, to
my mind, appears to lack any common sense. 
The Viscountess Rhondda was the wife of Sir Humphrey Mackworth, 7th baronet, until they
divorced in 1923, after which she resumed her maiden surname of Thomas. In 1915, she and her
father were among the survivors of the sinking by the Germans of the "Lusitania." 
Female life peers were first allowed to sit in the House of Lords following the Life Peerage Act of
1958. Somewhat ironically, the announcement of the first batch of life peers, which included
Baroness Wootton of Abinger, Baroness Swanborough, Baroness Elliot of Harwood and Baroness
Ravensdale of Kedleston occurred only four days after the death of Viscountess Rhondda. 
Peeresses in their own right were permitted to take their seats in the House of Lords following
the passing of the Peerage Act 1963 [although one of their number, Baroness Ravensdale, was
already a member of the Lords by virtue of her life peerage as Baroness Ravensdale of 
Kedleston.]
The initial (edited) hearing of Viscountess Rhondda's petition was reported in "The Times" on 
3 March 1922:-
'House of Lords Committee for Privileges (Before Lord Donoughmore (Chairman), Lord Haldane,
Lord Desart, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Wrenbury, Lord Phillimore, and Lord Askwith.)
 
'By letters patent, dated June 19, 1918, the petitioner's father was created Viscount Rhondda
of Llanwern, to hold the said dignity unto himself and the heirs male of his body with special
remainder in default of such issue to the petitioner and the heirs male of her body. On the
death of Lord Rhondda without male issue the petitioner succeeded to the title, and she now
sought to establish her claim to receive a writ of summons to Parliament in right of her said
dignity. Her claim was based upon Section 1 of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919,
whereby it was provided that a person should not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the
exercise of any public function or from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial 
office or post [my emphasis].
'Mr. G[eorge] J[ohn] Talbot [1861-1938], K.C., on behalf of the petitioner, said that the 
intention of the Legislature by the Act of 1919 was to obliterate all distinctions between a
man and a woman as regards the exercise of public functions. Those words were as wide as
possible, and included the right to sit in either House of Parliament. The terms of the section
showed no exception. The rule of construction applicable to general words occurring in a
statute was well settled, and it was that the Court was not entitled to read into those
words any exception or to construe them otherwise than in their plain and ordinary meaning,
unless there was something in the Act itself which afforded a ground for limiting their meaning.
[Talbot then goes on to discuss a number of historical legal cases which support this rule, and
in particular Chorlton v Lings (1868)], during which Mr. Justice Willes, in explaining why a
peeress in her own right who had most of the privileges of her peerage, could not sit or vote
in the House of Lords, attributed the absence of such right to the respect in which women
were held in this country and to a sense of decorum, but any such argument as that had been
blown to the winds, and it was not now thought that a seat in either House of Parliament
detracted in any way from the respect due to women.
'It was true that in the patent granted to Lord Rhondda, so far as the peerage was limited to
heirs male, the right to sit and vote was expressly granted, but that was no doubt by reason
of the common law disability preventing women from sitting in Parliament; and the words were
mere surplusage. Those words sometimes occurred in early grants and were sometimes absent,
but it was always regarded as immaterial whether the words were there or not, for the right
to receive a writ was annexed to the grant of the peerage ex debito justitiae [as a matter of
right] in the absence of any disability. Here was a person who if not a woman would be entitled
to sit in the House of Lords. Then came an Act of Parliament allowing women to take part in
the public affairs of the country without any exception. The common law barrier of sex having 
been swept away, there was no further obstacle to her right to sit.
'The Attorney-General (Sir Gordon Hewart, later Viscount Hewart), on behalf of the Crown, said
that he so entirely agreed with the arguments advanced in support of the claim that there was
very little left for him to say. When once it was established that the words "public functions"
included sitting in Parliament, the conclusion in favour of Lady Rhondda's claim was irresistible.
'Lord Donoughmore said that the Committee would report in favour of the petition.'
Notwithstanding the decision reached by the Privileges Committee, the House of Lords was not
happy with the result, and decided to undertake a further investigation into the matter, as
reported in "The Manchester Guardian" on 31 March 1922:-
'By their unanimous agreement to-night to send back to the Committee of Privileges for re-
consideration the Committee's report on Viscountess Rhondda's petition for a writ of summons
to Parliament, the Lords virtually decided that the whole matter should be entirely reopened
and gone into afresh, and not only so, but that it should be thrashed out by a specially
constituted tribunal at least quasi-judicial in character.
'All the peers who took part in the discussion refrained, or at any rate endeavoured to refrain,
from committing themselves one way or the other on the merits of the petition, the Lord
Chancellor setting an example in this sense by scrupulously treating the main issue as sub
judice. Nevertheless Lord Birkenhead spared no effort to persuade his fellow peers that the
Committee's report had been framed on imperfect knowledge and on the basis of a one-
sided legal argument. In other words the sub judice principle must be applied all round, and in
the meanwhile nothing must be taken for granted.
'Such was the net effect of the plea for reconsideration, so vigorously enforced by illustrations
and instances of the incompleteness of the Committee's work, that it became a little difficult to
accept in the proper spirit the Lord Chancellor's reiterated assurance that no reflection was 
implied on that body, and, as Lord Donoughmore complained, yet more difficult to understand
how the considerations now so powerfully outlined had not been brought to the Committee's
notice at the appropriate time.
'Another impression derived from the course of the debate was that in this matter the Lords
were luckier than most subjects of their - and the Commons - legislation are apt to be in finding
themselves in a position to construe a statutory enactment in the light of the intention with
which it was originally passed. Not that the Lord Chancellor or any other peer specifically 
insisted on any such privilege - so far, that is to say, as an authoritative judicial ruling might be
concerned. Here, however, the contention was that the Committee of Privileges stood in a
different position from a court of law, and that it remained an open question how far its
interpretations could be held to be binding on the House as a whole.
 
'Starting from this vital point the Lord Chancellor proceeded to give his reasons for reopening
the controversy, beginning with the apparently undisputed thesis that, though there was a most
formidable case to be argued against Lady Rhondda's claim, that argument had never been 
stated. "Yet this is a decision," he observed, "which reverses not merely the practice of
centuries but a conception of the law which has been held by some of the highest legal author-
ities in the land, even indeed by some of those who sat on this Committee and concurred in its
findings."
'How had so remarkable a decision been reached? By a construction of the Sex Disqualifications
(Removal) Act, asserted Lord Birkenhead, answering his own question, which, according to the
available evidence, had never occurred to anybody in either House as even a remote possibility.
Thus amendments were shown to have been moved and carried in the Commons with the
object of securing precisely such a result as the Committee of Privileges had since discovered
to be inherent in the Act without amendments. The amendments themselves, having been
rejected by the Lords in order to avert that result, were reinserted by the Commons to make
sure of achieving it, and again rejected by the Lords, and finally abandoned in despair by the
Commons. Consequently, as passed in the end, the bill, so the Lord Chancellor held, embodied 
an obvious intention acquiesced in by both Houses to exclude peeresses, and in particular
peeresses under patents already issued.
'No resistance was offered to the motion for the reconsideration of the Committee's report,
though, as has been indicated, the chairman (Lord Donoughmore) gave somewhat reproachful
expression to his surprise at the belated energy of the Government in the production of the 
other side of the case.'
The final outcome of the petition was described in "The Manchester Guardian" on 20 May 1922:-
'By twenty votes to four the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords yesterday decided
that the claim and petition of Viscountess Rhondda for a writ of summons to Parliament had
not been made out. 
'The Committee reported in favour of Lady Rhondda in March last, but on the motion of the
Lord Chancellor the report was referred back for reconsideration, the membership of the 
Committee being increased, notably by a number of Law Lords, of whom twelve are taking part.
'The Attorney-General (Sir E. Pollock, K.C. [later Viscount Hanworth]), continuing his speech
on behalf of the Crown, pointed out that, by the Representation of the People Act in 1918, a
Peeress in her own right was given the privilege of voting for a member of the House of 
Commons so as to secure that, even if indirectly, she should be represented in Parliament. It
was now suggested that by one ambiguous phrase, "any public function," in the Sex
Disqualification (Removal) Act, a Peeress was to have the option of saying whether she would 
sit in the House of Lords or vote for and sit as a member of the House of Commons.
'He submitted that though a Statute was expressed in wide terms, the Courts in the interp-
retation of that Statute would have regard to the state of the law when the Statute was
passed, and would find out whether it was intended to make so wide an alteration to the law
by merely general words. The words in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act were general 
words, and he invited their lordships to say that these general words were not intended to
make so sweeping an alteration as was contended for, and that these ambiguous words, "any
public function," were not intended and, indeed, were not apt to make the alteration.
'He submitted that a peerage was not a public function. The summons was personal and not
general. It was a right which belonged to a particular holder. It was almost confusion of 
thought, if not confusion of language, to say that the holder of that dignity was exercising a
public function. The true measure of what his rights were was that he had a personal right to
receive a summons, and not a general right. It was one thing to be a Lord of Parliament and
another to hold a barony.
'Aliens and minors could hold a dignity, but could not be Lords of Parliament, and he suggested
that when they found that the phrase "place, seat and voice" was absent from a patent it was
because the patent gave close attention to the law as it stood, and as it had stood. The 
absence of the words "place, seat and voice" was not to be interpreted as of no importance.
They were for the purpose of carrying out the law as it was known right away back in the 
middle ages and the time when barons were first summoned to Parliament. A Peeress had never 
been recognised as capable of holding a barony, barony being one which involved a duty which
was a matter of tenure.
'The position of all peers had come up markedly under consideration in the Act of Union 
(Scotland) in 1707 and in the Act of Union (Ireland) in 1800. Their lordships would find definite,
clear, and special sections introduced on each of these occasions to deal with the future
position and existing position of the peerage. Perhaps he might finally say that when one turned
back to the Statutes, their lordships were invited by a doubtful interpretation of ambiguous 
words to declare that a vital, wide, far-reaching, and important alteration had been made in the
the position of their lordships' House.
'When the question had had to be considered at the time of the Unions of Scotland and Ireland
it was not in general words, but in a very special and exact section that the alteration was
made. It was now suggested that by this ambiguous phrase their lordships should allow this
alteration to be made and the right given to all persons who undoubtedly held a dignity to
become - he used the phrase in a loose sense - Lords of Parliament. The position was embedded
in the long past, and there was an abundance of law and learning as to the origin of baronies,
and that law was a part of jurisprudence to-day.
'Mr. Talbot, K.C., in replying, dealt with the authorities quoted by the Attorney General in
support of his argument. Could anyone say, he asked, that to abolish the only remaining
disqualification which, as far as he knew, would give effect to the undoubted enactment of
this Statute that the present case was not general to the scope of the Statute or that it was
legitimate to disregard what he submitted was the plain language and true construction of the
words in order to get rid of it? He could not understand how all the authorities quoted could 
have any reference to the Statute, which, on the face of it, carried its intention as plainly as
it could.
'There was no trace in the Act of any exception whatever in the abolition by law of all distinc-
tions between men and women in regard to the public affairs of this country. He did not think
it could be seriously suggested that taking part in the House of Lords Assembly was comparable
in importance to the revolutionary claim of admitting women to every judicial office in the 
country.
'The Bar was then cleared, and after a short interval the Chairman announced the decision of
the Committee.'
Frances Teresa Stuart, wife of Charles Stuart, 3rd Duke of Richmond (creation of 1641)
(8 Jul 1647 - 15 October 1702)
Between 1672 and 1971, English coinage depicted an image of Britannia. This image was based
upon Frances Stuart, Duchess of Richmond, whose biography appeared in the October 1955
issue of the Australian monthly magazine "Parade":-
 
"That innocent raw girl," Samuel Pepys, the diarist, called her; "that inanimate idiot" was the
Comte de Grammont's ungentlemanly opinion, after inspecting the surpassing loveliness of Miss
Frances Stuart and concluding that it "was hardly possible for a woman to have less wit and
more beauty." True, Miss Stuart seemed to have little talent for anything except, perhaps, for
building houses with cards and playing blind man's buff. Still she must have had something; for
King Charles II laid his heart and his coffers at her feet, and when she spurned both, did her
the signal honour of having her likeness engraved on his pennies and ha'pennies in the image of
an inviolate Britannia armed with trident and palm, to watch over his coinage, with the same
care, as Charles regretted, she guarded her virtue. 
'The luminous orbs of "La Belle Stuart" still gaze innocently (or idiotically) forth from the coinage
of Britain to this day. She had no money at all of her own. Her father, the Hon. Walter Stuart,
third son of Lord Blantyre, lost everything fighting for King Charles I in the war. Francis was 
born in England in 1647 or 1648 [8 July 1647], shortly before the King's execution, and was
taken into exile in France the following year by her father, who filled the somewhat surprising
post - perhaps titular only - of physician to Queen Henrietta Maria, Charles I's widow and the
the mother of Charles II.
'Frances grew up in Henrietta Maria's entourage at the French court, but in 1662, two years
after the Restoration she came to England. Henrietta Stuart (Charles II's adored and adoring
little sister, Minette), wrote Charles that she was sending him a little protégé, Francis Stuart,
"the prettiest girl in the world, who knows how to wear her clothes better than anyone."
Frances came over in the train of Henrietta Maria to become maid-of-honour to Charles's
bride, Princess Catherine of Braganza, and landed in the midst of what, in any family circle,
would be called a domestic crisis.
 
'Princess Catherine, as was rare for a 17th century princess, fell in love with her husband.
Charles, however, was somewhat offhand in his marital attentions, for his shrewish mistress,
Lady Castlemaine (formerly Mrs. Palmer, nee Barbara Villiers) had just borne him her first son,
and he had no eyes, temporarily, for his new wife. During the year that battle raged between
hurt wife and hurtful mistress, little Frances Stuart began to blossom.
'By the summer of 1663, when the King staggered the fashionable world by riding hand-in-hand
with his wife, the Queen, in Hyde Park, and ignoring his mistress, Lady Castlemaine, who looked
"mighty out of humour," little Frances's beauty was beginning to make eyes pop. Pepys, never
far away from a gathering of pretty women, recorded his pleasure: "Mistress Stuart in this dress,
with her hat cocked and a red plume, with her sweet eyes, little Roman nose, and excellent 
figure, is now the greatest beauty I ever saw, I think, in all my life...."
 
'It was only a matter of time before the King's roving eye was similarly impressed. At Bath,
whither their majesties repaired later in the year, Frances was singled out not only by the King
but by half his gentlemen. Instead of being alarmed by the impression the new beauty had made
on the King, Lady Castlemaine, as soon as the court returned to London, took her under her 
wing. She invited Frances to all the amusements and when they lasted late often put her up
for the night. It was rare indiscretion for the cunning Castlemaine, particularly as her shrewish
temper was beginning to make her royal lover tire of her. Charles, patient, easy-going reprobate
that he was, still visited her before she rose most mornings, but it was not conducive to keeping
his cooling ardour warm that he frequently found her in bed with a much prettier woman - the
prettiest woman in all his kingdom, in fact, "La Belle Stuart."
'It was not surprising that the situation created gossip and allegations that My Lady Castle-
maine, feeling that she was losing her hold on the King and determined that the Queen would 
not supplant her, deliberately conspired to hand her sceptre on to Frances. The gossips were
wrong, but Charles was so deeply smitten with the fair Frances that when Castlemaine told him
she had sent Frances packing he startled her by saying that unless Frances were at her house
he would never visit her. 
 
'The illness of the Queen just then called a temporary halt to Charles's pursuit of the new
charmer, but having devotedly attended his wife back to health he returned once more to the
chase after the elusive Frances. In a last bid to regain his affections the Lady Castlemaine
turned Catholic, believing that Charles was himself secretly a Catholic, though by reasons of
State he was compelled to uphold Protestantism. The result was nil except to arouse the alarm
of her frightened relatives, who begged Charles to interfere and persuade her against it. That
insouciant monarch merely replied that, as for the souls of the ladies, he never meddled there,
and while he had the pen in his hand wrote a song to Frances.
 
'That lady, however, was proving difficult. She could never get enough admiration but she liked
to give as little as possible in return. She allowed Charles to kiss her and caress her and pursue
her along the galleries, but from more pressing advances she took refuge in flight. Charles, 
hoping to win her by the flattery, had his engravers stamp her as Britannia on his coinage. The
result was that the engraver, a Dutchman named Rottier, whom Charles had picked up abroad,
fell head over heels in love with her. Then the courtiers began to court her smiles as a means 
of gaining the King's favour. The Duke of Buckingham undertook to be her guide, philosopher,
friend and court jester. "God knows what a governor he would have been and what a head he
possessed to guide another," deplored de Grammont. "However, he was the most proper man
in the world to insinuate himself with Miss Stuart. She was childish in her behaviour and laughed
at everything." Buckingham spent his evenings building the elaborate card castles Frances
admired, singing to her and telling her stories. However, he made the mistake one evening of
making love to her, and found himself back where he had started.
'In the summer of 1666 the Queen, still feeling poorly, adjourned to the waters of Tunbridge
Wells. Charles and the court went with her. It was a carefree oasis in a troubled world. 
Frances, in the full tide of her beauty, eclipsed all the nymphs in this paradise. Charles was
still madly infatuated with her, but amused himself with the actresses Moll Davies and Nell
Gwyn, who had come to entertain the company. Frances apparently studied those coquettes,
for, back in London, she behaved in true coquette fashion. She let His Distracted Majesty install
her in luxurious lodgings, allowed him to visit her in her bedchamber, yet she kept intact what
she chose to call her virtue. 
'Charles became so morose that his doctors thought he had consumption. Dark hints spread
around London that the teasing Miss Stuart was holding out for a wedding ring and that Charles
was going to divorce Catherine to marry her. This was too much for My Lady Castlemaine. One
night when Charles had seen Frances to her bed and been given his leave on the score of the
lady's fatigue, Castlemaine waylaid him and taunted him that if he cared or dared to return
unannounced he would find Frances with her real lover. Charles hesitated and returned. It was
nearly midnight, and a chambermaid barred his way. Miss Stuart had been very ill since he had
left, she said, but had now fallen into a sound sleep. "That I must see," said Charles, brushing
the girl aside and striding into the room. He found Miss Stuart in bed, indeed, but far from being
asleep. The Duke of Richmond was seated at her pillow, and in all probability was less inclined to
sleep than she was. 
'It was one of those rare occasions in his life when Charles lost his temper. "The King, who of all
men was one of the most mild and gentle, testified his resentment to the Duke of Richmond in
such terms as he had never before used." The Duke decided on the instant that discretion was
the better part of valour. On a profound bow to his Sovereign he bolted out the window, leaving
Frances to cope with the situation as best she could. She judged that the best defence was
attack. Was she not allowed to receive in innocent audience whomsoever she wished, she
demanded. Why could she not receive Richmond, "who came with honourable intentions?" She
was a slave in a free country, she cried, and would be better off in a convent in France. She
ended by asking him to leave. 
'Charles left, his face dark with anger, thundering that he never wanted to see her again. The 
next day he forbade the Duke the court, but the Duke had flown to his country seat. Charles'
anger was twofold. Not only had he lost his love to a rival, but Richmond was his pet aversion.
Born Charles Stuart, kin to the Royal house, he was the third Duke of Richmond and sixth Duke
of Lennox, and had been married twice before. But Charles came round to beg Frances to give
up Richmond, and offered to make her a duchess and settle a large estate on her if she would. 
The triumphant beauty set her pretty lips and repeated stubbornly that she must either "marry
him (Richmond) or suffer much in the opinion of the world." 
'Richmond, meantime, had persuaded her to elope with him, and on a stormy night at the end
of March 1667, they ran away to his country seat, Cobham Hall. Charles learned of the elope-
ment when he visited her lodgings the next morning. He came out "in a rage that forgot all
decency" and which lasted for days. The marriage was publicly announced in April, 1667, but
the pair did not dare return to court. However, in the spring of 1668, when Frances was
staying at Somerset House, London, she caught smallpox, and whom Charles described as "a
little fantastical gentleman called Cupid" drew him back to visit her. "I must confess," he wrote
to his sister Minette, "this last affliction made me pardon all that is past. I cannot hinder myself
from wishing her very well. I hope she will not be much changed......" Frances' beauty was 
destroyed by that illness. One of her eyes was permanently injured, and she was left haggard 
and pock-marked. 
'The Duke of Richmond died in 1672 at Elsinore while ambassador to Denmark, and Frances had
a long widowhood. By strict economies she was able to save a fortune, with which she bought
the estate of Lethington. On her death in 1702 she left it to her impoverished nephew, the Earl
of Blantyre, with the single request, as romantic as it is puzzling, that it be called Lennoxlove.'
Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond (creation of 1675)
The second Duke of Richmond is best remembered today as the greatest patron of cricket in its
early days. He is also, however, a central character in one of the most romantic marriages of 
the 18th century. 
On 4 December 1719, at The Hague, in the Netherlands, Lennox married, at the age of 18, Lady
Sarah Cadogan, daughter of the 1st Baron (and later 1st Earl) Cadogan. She was only 14 at the 
time of the marriage. At the time of this marriage, Lennox was known by the courtesy title of
Earl of March.
According to the story "the second Duke was carried off to church by his parents and married,
much against his will, to Lady Sarah Cadogan, the eldest daughter of William, Earl Cadogan.
Lady Sarah was taken out of the nursery to be married to a boy whom she hardly knew by sight,
and when the ceremony was over they parted with mutual satisfaction at the church door, the
bridegroom even bursting into bitter tears at being 'tied up for life to such a horrible fright.' 
Years flew by, most of which he passed upon the Continent in completing his education, and
making what was then called 'the grand tour.' After an absence of seven or eight years, during
which not a line had been exchanged between the young couple, the husband came back to
England without his wife knowing anything about it. A night or two after his return he found 
his way to the opera to while away a dull evening, and on entering the house he found every
eye fixed upon a sanguinary beautiful and elegant woman who was seated in a box immediately
opposite him. Upon enquiring her name he received the answer, 'That is the lovely Countess of
March, the greatest beauty in London, and the universal toast of the day.' The result will be
easily foreseen. The fortunate owner of such a prize was not slow in making himself known to
his wife, and they fell in love with each other at first sight."
Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond (creation of 1675)
Lennox was one of the few people who, when asked "Were you born in a barn?" could answer 
yes. Apparently, his mother, heavily pregnant during a fishing trip, did not have time to
reach a more orthodox birthplace. 
He was one of the great benefactors of the game of cricket, being, together with the 9th Earl 
of Winchilsea, the guarantors of Thomas Lord's Cricket Ground when it opened in 1787 and thus
providing the genesis of the world's best known cricket ground. According to the Cricinfo
website, Lennox was an accomplished cricketer as a right-hand batsman and wicketkeeper.
In 1787, Lennox was commissioned as a Captain in the 35th Regiment of Foot, later exchanging
in 1789 to a captaincy in the Coldstream Guards. The commander of the Coldstream Guards at
the time was the Duke of York, the second son of King George III. When the Duke expressed his
dissatisfaction with Lennox's appointment and made disparaging remarks about the courage of
the Lennox family (who were his political enemies), Lennox challenged the Duke to a duel, which
took place on 26 May 1789. Lennox's shot grazed the Duke's head, whereupon the Duke fired 
into the air, declaring that he bore Lennox no animosity. Notwithstanding this outcome, Lennox 
shortly after transferred to another regiment.
Lennox sat in the House of Commons for Sussex from 1790 until he succeeded as Duke of 
Richmond in 1806. He was then appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1807, a position he
retained until 1813. In 1818, he was appointed Governor General of British North America, 
whence he proceeded. 
The main purpose of this note, however, is to describe the Duke's horrible death from rabies.
The following article is taken from 'The Times' of 30 October 1819, being a reprint of a private 
letter received by that paper from Quebec:-
 
'His Grace having left this place [Quebec] about June 24, on an extensive tour through the 
Canadas, after his arrival at William Henry, 135 miles up the river, whilst walking about the 
village with his little dog, Blucher, met a fox about the place, with which the dog appeared
sociable, and they entered into play together. His Grace seemed much pleased, and expressed
something like a wish that the fox should be purchased. Accordingly, the hint was attended to 
by a servant belonging to the suite, who purchased the fox the same night. Next morning Sir
Charles Saxton, seeing the fox tied to a tent pitched for the accommodation of the servants,
and apparently much irritated from his restrained situation under a scorching sun, desired that
the animal might be removed somewhere into the shade. He was then fixed to a wicket-gate
in front of the house. His Grace, on coming out in the morning, observing the fox, which he
knew to be the same he had seen the day before, went up to him, saying - 'Is this you, my
little fellow?' and on offering to put out his hand to caress the fox, Sir Charles Saxton touched
the Duke on the shoulder to prevent it, apprising his Grace at the same time of the irritation of
the fox, and that he might bite. 'No, no,' said his Grace, 'the little fellow will not bite me,' and
putting out his hand, the fox snapped, and made three scratches on the back of his hand, which
drew blood. His Grace, quickly drawing it back, said - 'Indeed, my friend, you bite very hard.' 
The next morning his Grace found an uneasy sensation in his shoulder; but nothing further
occurred till near returning on his tour, when at the new back settlement of Perth, on the 22nd
or 23rd of August, after having returned from walking, his Grace desired his servant to make
two glasses of wine and water for himself and Major Bowles. As soon as the Duke took the wine
and water, he observed to the Major, that he felt a strange sensation on drinking it. On the
way from Perth towards the Ottawa River, some of his servants observed his irritability and
extreme aversion to water on crossing the smallest streamlets in the woods, and they could
scarcely get him along. On his approaching a small hut on the Ottawa River, rather than go
into a house close to the river, he turned short, and ran into a barn; at another time he ran
from them into the woods, as if to shun the sight of water. His disorder was now rapidly
increasing, and on arriving within six miles on this side of the newly named place of Richmond,
after suffering most excruciating torments, he died, at 8 o'clock on Saturday morning, the 28th
of August.'
Lord FitzRoy George Charles Lennox (11 Jun 1820-Mar 1841), 2nd son of the
5th Duke of Richmond (creation of 1675)
Lord FitzRoy was a passenger on board the SS President, a British passenger liner that, at the
time of its commissioning in 1840, was the largest ship in the world. Unfortunately, it was also
the first steamship to be lost on the trans-Atlantic route, when, in March 1841, it disappeared
with 136 passengers and crew on board. 
The following account of the loss of the ship appeared in the monthly Australian magazine
"Parade" in its issue for March 1962. Based on the spelling of certain words such as 'harbor'
and 'rumor' and the continued use of the term 'Lord Lennox' when it should be "Lord FitzRoy 
Lennox', I suspect that the story has been taken from an unknown American publication. 
Regrettably, the story also contains quite a number of factual errors which I have done my best 
to correct. Taking these errors into consideration together with the almost certain
sensationalising of the following account detracts considerably from the level of credence which 
can be placed upon the article, but the story is still worth telling:-
'On the afternoon of March 11, 1841, 10,000 people stood on a New York pier waving farewell
to the steamship President. Aboard the vessel were four millionaires with their butlers and 
valets, the international playboy Lord FitzRoy Lennox, and Tyrone Power, forebear [great-
grandfather] of the film star and the most celebrated Irish comedian of the day. On President's
deck, distinguished little knots of passengers chatted excitedly and waved to the receding 
figures on the pier. Slowly she slid through the olive-green water towards the Atlantic Ocean.
'That was the last anyone saw of President, which was to vanish in one of the sea's most
baffling mysteries. For weeks after she sailed into oblivion, a strange series of events led many
to believe President was still afloat. Documents purporting to describe her sinking were published
in the press; people swore they had seen the ship looming through fog with all her lights blazing.
Some even claimed they had seen Tyrone Power walking in the streets of New York and London,
while others said they had received letters from Power and Lord [FitzRoy] Lennox which had
obviously been written after the ship's departure. Mystified by the affair, Queen Victoria herself
instituted a special search for President. When it proved futile she went into mourning.
'Luxuriously appointed, the 4000-ton [actually about 2,350 tons] President was owned by the
Royal Mail Packet Service [actually the British and American Steam Navigation Company] and
was used mainly on the Atlantic run. 
'When she left New York for Liverpool on March 11, 1841, she carried 121 passengers, including
[Lord] FitzRoy Lennox, Power, and 25 wealthy American tourists. Power was fresh from a brilliant
nationwide tour and at the peak of his career. Still in his early thirties [he was actually in his 
mid forties], he was feted wherever he went, and the Irish population of America had given him 
a superb farewell dinner. But the actor seemed to have a premonition of impending doom. The 
night before the ship sailed he told a friend: "I don't think I'll ever see dear old Ireland again.
Every time I see a picture of the home country a terrible sadness overwhelms me." Then Power
posted his wedding ring to his wife and sent her a letter asking her to pray for him.
'The sea was calm as President left the harbor and steamed slowly out of sight. Twenty days
later she had not arrived at Liverpool. When several days went by without any news, the 
vessel's fate became world news. On April 7 The Times published a statement that the trader
Orpheus which had left New York two days after President, had caught up with her and
accompanied her for the rest of her voyage. [I can find no such report in that paper on that
date. Instead, on 9th April, The Times denied that this story was correct] Hundreds rushed to
Liverpool docks when Orpheus arrived. The crowd swept up the gangway and besieged the
captain in his quarters. Leading them was Lord [FitzRoy] Lennox's father, the Duke of Richmond,
who shouted: "Where is my son, sir? Where is President?" The captain shrugged: "I haven't
seen the ship, sir," he said, Would to God I had, but neither smoke nor spar of her have I 
glimpsed in all the wild Atlantic waste." Richmond blanched and burst into tears. Then he pulled
himself together and addressed the crowd: "Go home, we can only pray now; there is no news
of her or of my handsome boy."
'Sensations followed as the long-delayed Britannia arrived at Southampton without news of
President. Instead, she reported sighting "a strange, ghostly vessel that shone with weird
effulgence" [St.Elmo's Fire?] in the mists off Iceland. Passengers said the mystery ship loomed
off the starboard bow, its rigging steaming and its sails slack. No steam appeared to be coming
from the single funnel and there was no sign of life aboard. Then the ship glided away and
vanished into the darkness. Several of Britannia's crew swore the ship was President. Others
declared equally firmly that it was not. 
'Soon after, the frigate Lynx reported seeing her two miles north of the [Western?] isles. A
government yacht was sent to the Western Isles, but reported on her return that no one there
had seen President since 1839. [Hardly surprising, since her maiden voyage had not taken place
until August 1840.] During the first days of April several vessels reported sighting President near
the Shetlands. 
'Deeply concerned, Queen Victoria arranged for a search around the Scottish coast, across the
North Sea and into the North Atlantic. When nothing came of the search, the Duke of Richmond
and Mrs. Tyrone Power jointly offered a huge reward for information leading to President's 
discovery. 
'Then, on April 13 a special train arrived in Birmingham from Liverpool. Rumors spread that a
Queen's Messenger on the train had information that President was moored off the Lancashire 
coast and all aboard were safe. The Times promptly sent a reported to Birmingham to interview
the messenger. But there was no messenger, nor was it possible to find who had started the
rumor. 
'No sooner had the excitement simmered down than the wife of President's captain, Mrs. Anne
Roberts, received a letter from her husband, postmarked Madeira. "Dearest," it read, "We have
sustained damage to the rudder and engines and have put in at this lovely island for repairs. We
will be all home safe and sound and everyone is in good health." A special Lloyd's of London
messenger was sent to Mrs. Roberts' home. He found her sobbing as she sat with the letter
crumpled in her hand. "I've shown the note to my husband's relatives," she said, "and I'm 
terribly afraid they're convinced it's a fraud. Now that I've looked at it again I'm sure they're
right. It's the handwriting, so nearly his, but oh, not exactly." [A very similar report appeared in
The Times on 14 April 1841].
'Next day Mrs. Tyrone Power received a letter from her husband. It contained endearments 
which only the actor and his wife used for each other as well as references to happenings,
which Tyrone "would have never revealed to another soul." Once again, the letter came from
Madeira, and this time it had every appearance of being genuine. Mrs. Power took it to her
husband's manager so that it could be compared with handwritten documents. A handwriting
expert who was called in declared there were minute differences in the script which could
have been the result of illness or a different pen. But he would not state that the letter was
genuine, declaring only that if it was a forgery, it had been done by a master hand.
'Meanwhile, on April 15, came still another sensation. That morning, several Irish vessels docking
in Cork reported sighting a large vessel of President's description standing off the coast. 
Because of the haze it was impossible to examine her markings, but the masts, funnel and hull 
design were unmistakable. Directly the information was received a special messenger was sent
to Queen Victoria at Windsor Castle. Crowds flocked to Trafalgar Square and a special fireworks
display was held to celebrate President's apparent return to safety. But it was just another
anti-climax. The ship seen in the fog was never sighted again [nor, for that matter, could I
find any report of the alleged fireworks display].
'By late April rumors were coming thick and fast. Captain Roberts' brother-in-law produced a
letter with a Bristol postmark saying that a ship had put in at Waterford with the news that he
had left Bermuda on April 8 and was on her way to Liverpool. The letter was published by The 
Times and people again celebrated - until the Waterford harbor authorities said no ship had
recently arrived from the Bermudas.
'Early in May people who knew Tyrone Power, Lord [FitzRoy] Lennox and some of the wealthy 
Americans aboard declared they were certain they had seen them walking in the streets of
London and New York. One of Power's fans actually pursued the actor round the block, then
lost him in the crowd. 
'In mid-May one of the most extraordinary events in the whole President affair occurred. Near
Cork an aged man was walking along the beach with his granddaughter when the little girl
spotted a champagne bottle lying in the sand. The bottle was corked and contained a message
which was so smudged it was difficult to read. The old man took it to the Mayor of Cork, who
sent it to the maritime authorities in Dublin. The letter was subjected to a special chemical
treatment until most of it could be deciphered. It told a strange story. Apparently written by
Tyrone Power - the signature was his, and the writing (though dismissed by some as a forgery)
like his - the letter gave a vivid description of a huge sea monster which came out of the deep.
Wrapping its long tentacles around the steamship, it proceeded to drag it down. "All is lost,"
the note ended. "God help us all, Tyrone Power."
'No mention of the letter appeared in the British press and no copy was sent to Mrs. Power for
identification. Yet in Ireland, where Power's most ardent admirers waited desperately for news 
of their idol, the report caused national mourning. 
'The fantastic [almost certainly the correct word] series of events ran on well into 1842. 
Documents were found which appeared to describe President's sinking. Ship after ship was said
to have passed President in storms and fogs off the coast of America and the rocky shores of 
Scotland. In mid-1842 Mrs. Power reported that a mysterious thief had crept into her house one
night and stolen all her husband's papers. She had the "queerest feeling," she told a friend, "that
one night Tyrone came into my room and kissed me as I slept. He is still alive, I am sure, but
where, oh where?"
'It was five years before The Royal Mail Line [sic], finally closing its books on the affair, issued a
statement that President had been "lost at sea, probably by an act of God." [In reality, the 
owner, the British and American Steam Navigation Company, collapsed shortly after the 
President's disappearance].
The special remainder to the Barony of Rivers created in 1802
From the "London Gazette" of 13 March 1802 (issue 15461, page 270):-
"The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland to the Right Honorable George Lord Rivers, and to the Heirs Male of his Body
lawfully begotten, by the Name, Style and Title of Baron Rivers, of Sudeley Castle, in the
County of Gloucester, with Remainders to the Right Honorable Sir William Augustus Pitt, Knight
of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, and General of His Majesty's Forces, (Brother of the
said George Lord Rivers,) and to the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten; and to the issue
Male successively of Peter Beckford, of Stapleton, in the County of Dorset, Esq; by Louisa
Beckford, his late Wife, deceased, (Daughter of the said George Lord Rivers,) and to the Heirs
Male of their respective Bodies lawfully begotten."
William Horace Pitt-Rivers, 3rd Baron Rivers
The following account of the inquest into the death of Lord Rivers appeared in 'The Observer'
of 31 January 1831:-
'On Sunday last his Lordship dined with his family, at his residence, No. 10, Grosvenor-place,
and about nine o'clock in the evening walked out, as he was in the habit of doing after dinner,
alone. His Lordship did not return home that night, and his family becoming greatly alarmed, 
caused a strict inquiry to be made  after him. Not the slightest suspicion was entertained
that he had committed suicide, or that he had met his death by accident; and it was therefore
not deemed necessary to search the rivers and ponds of the Metropolis. That search, however,
was made on Tuesday and Wednesday, and on the morning of the latter day his Lordship's
body was found near the head of the Serpentine River, in Hyde Park. Although several accidents
have happened at this place by persons falling off the bank into the water on a dark night, it 
has for many years past been suffered to remain unguarded, and without any fence or paling.
'His Lordship had his gold watch and money in his pocket when found, so that it is evident he
had not been robbed and afterwards pushed in. There were no marks of violence on his body,
nor did his clothes appear in a disordered state. The body, when taken out of the water, was
removed to the Fox and Bull public-house, Knightsbridge, where an inquest was held on 
Thursday.
'The witnesses who were examined said that the deceased lived upon good terms with his lady
and family; his affairs were in the most prosperous state, and nothing was observed about him
indicative of aberration of mind; they therefore did not suppose that the deceased committed
suicide. He was very short-sighted, and could not see objects before him until he came close
to them; it was therefore considered by the witnesses extremely probable that he had fallen
off the footpath into the river by accident, and thus had been drowned. James Basten, a
servant in the employ of the Humane Society, said the place where the body was found was
the most dangerous part in the river; there was no railing, nor any guard or fence to prevent
accidents; an accident of this description would be almost sure to occur to a near-sighted
person. The witness added, that one foggy night ten persons successively walked in at that
place, and were with great difficulty saved. 
'Col. Phillott, one of the Jury, said, that about ten days ago he made a representation to the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests respecting the insecure state of the very spot where the 
body was found. The rest of the Jury said it was a most shameful omission on the part of those
who had charge of this park. The Jury consulted together for a few minutes, and then returned
the following verdict :- "Found Drowned near the public path at the head of the Serpentine
River - considered very dangerous for want of a rail or fence, and where several persons lately
have accidentally fallen in."
Horace Pitt-Rivers, 6th Baron Rivers and his first wife, Eleanor Suter
The following article appeared in the 'Clarence and Richmond Examiner and New England 
Advertiser' published at Grafton in northern New South Wales on 2 February 1878. The note
illustrates interesting differences between English and Scottish marriage law at that time.
'There lived in Brighton many years ago a fisherman named Suter or Souter. His cottage was a
picture of neatness, and his garden was admired by the aristocratic visitors of that watering
place. The chief attraction of his cottage was the presence of two handsome young girls - 
one a stepdaughter, called familiarly Nelly Holmes, and his own daughter, bearing of course
his name, Suter. Nelly, the elder of the two, possessed a wonderful power in attracting the
attentions of the other sex. She is said to have been witty, vivacious, refined, and educated
above her natural sphere of life. When her beauty was at its prime the honourable Horace Pitt,
considered to be the handsomest and fastest man in London, came down on a visit to Brighton.
He, like the rest, admired the fisherman's daughter, and, wearied perhaps of the artificial airs
of the Court ladies, he wooed and married Nelly Holmes [on 10 April 1845]. It is said that when
she married him she had no idea that he was the heir to a famous peerage.
'Lord Rivers, the father of her husband, fell into a delicate state of health, and Horace had by
this time become wearied of his wife's free manner, and thought that she would be no ornament
to the British peerage. He sought and obtained a divorce from her in the Scottish law courts,
but he should have known that a Scottish decree has no validity in England. When Lord Rivers
entered the House of Lords he found there an appeal to his peers on the part of Nelly Holmes, 
demanding to be put in possession of all her rights and privileges as Lady Rivers. She won her
suit, and occupied her seat as the legitimate wife of Lord Rivers.'
This article is incorrect in a number of instances. Initially, Horace Pitt applied for a divorce
before the Scottish Court of Session in December 1862. The divorce application was granted, on
the grounds that he was resident in Scotland. On 25 February 1864 (before Horace Pitt had 
succeeded to the peerage - rather than when "he entered the House of Lords" as stated in the
article above), the House of Lords heard an appeal from Lady Rivers against the Scottish 
decision. Their decision was reported in the 'Aberdeen Journal' of 2 March 1864:-
'In the House of Lords, on Thursday, an extraordinary appeal case - Mrs Eleanor Suter or Pitt v
the Hon. Horace Pitt - came on for hearing. This was an appeal from the Court of Session in
Scotland. The suit was brought by the [resent respondent, the Hon. Horace Pitt, formerly 
Lieutenant-Colonel of the Royal Horse Guards Blue, to obtain a divorce from his wife, Eleanor
Pitt, formerly Suter. The point involved was one of jurisdiction of the courts of Scotland to
dissolve a marriage contracted in England, on the ground that the respondent was domiciled in
Scotland. It appeared that the respondent was an Englishman by birth, being the youngest son
of the late John Rivers, and having entered the Royal Horse Guards Blue, he resided chiefly, if 
not altogether, in London, in the barracks in which his regiment was quartered. He formed a
connection with the appellant, and, after some cohabitation, was married to her on the 10th of
April, 1845. At the time of her marriage his wife was possessed of no inconsiderable means, and
her property was settled on her to her sole use. After a marriage trip to the Continent, the 
parties returned to London, and lived in a house in Tilney Street, May Fair, which was the
property of the wife; but in the year 1846 the respondent bought a house in Park Lane for a
residence; but having fallen into pecuniary difficulties, he was unable to carry out the object,
and he again took up his quarters in the barracks of his regiment, the wife continuing to
occupy the house in Tilney Street. In 1854 the respondent's pecuniary embarrassments were
such that he was obliged to keep out of the way of his creditors, was compelled to sell his
commission, and seek a refuge in Scotland. All this time the wife remained in England, and
resided at a place called "the Dell," at Englefield Green, in Surrey, but, with the exception of
a few months when he went to the Crimea, the respondent resided in Scotland. In 1858 the
respondent took a house near Oban on lease, and has continued to reside there. Until that
year he corresponded with his wife upon amicable terms, when circumstances came to his
knowledge which caused him to seek a divorce in the Scottish courts on the ground of her
adultery. When the case came on for hearing the appellant disputed the jurisdiction of the
court. The Lord Ordinary, in the first instance, held that the respondent had resided sufficiently
in Scotland to have become domiciled in that country, and that by consequence the domicile 
of the wife followed his, although she had never left England. On appeal to the Inner House
this ruling was confirmed, but on another ground - namely, that even if the respondent had
acquired a Scotch domicile, and although the English domicile was not lost, the wife must be
considered resident with her husband in Scotland for all legal purposes; the present appeal was
then brought.'
Lady Rivers died 3 September 1872, but not before she figured prominently in the Wicklow
Peerage case (qv) during which she was described as "a prostitute in Georgian times who had 
tricked Lord Rivers into a short-lived marriage." This charge is lent a degree of credibility when
it is considered that she owned a house in Mayfair, a possession not normally associated with 
the daughter of a fisherman.
 
Frederick Sleigh Roberts VC,1st Earl Roberts
Roberts was a Lieutenant in the Bengal Artillery during the Indian Mutiny, during which he
saw action for which he was later awarded the Victoria Cross. The citation, gazetted on
24 December 1858, reads:-
'Lieutenant Roberts' gallantry has on every occasion been most marked. On following up the
retreating enemy on the 2nd January, 1858, at Khodagunge, he saw in the distance two Sepoys
going away with a standard. Lieutenant Roberts put spurs to his horse, and overtook them 
just as they were about to enter a village. They immediately turned round, and presented their
muskets at him, and one of the men pulled the trigger, but fortunately the caps snapped, and
the standard-bearer was cut down by this gallant young officer, and the standard taken
possession of by him. He also, on the same day, cut down another Sepoy who was standing at
bay, with musket and bayonet, keeping off a Sowar [i.e. a mounted soldier]. Lieutenant Roberts
rode to the assistance of the horseman, and, rushing at the Sepoy, with one blow of his sword
cut him across the face, killing him on the spot.'
Of all the recipients of the Victoria Cross, Roberts probably enjoyed the greatest subsequent 
career, becoming a Field Marshal, Commander in Chief of the British Army, and a member of the
Knights of St. Patrick and Order of Merit. When he died in 1914, he became the first non-royal
to lie in state in Westminster Hall (Sir Winston Churchill in 1965 was the only other occurrence.)
Roberts' son, Frederick Hugh Sherston Roberts, also won a (posthumous) Victoria Cross for his
bravery at the Battle of Colenso during the 2nd Boer War on 15 December 1899.
The special remainders to the Viscountcy of St. Pierre and the Earldom of Roberts
created in 1901
 
From the "London Gazette" of 12 February 1901 (issue 27283, page 1058):-
 
"The King has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, granting the dignities of Viscount and Earl of the
said United Kingdom unto Frederick Sleigh, Baron Roberts of Kandahar, K.G., K.P., G.C.B., 
G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., V.C., Field-Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces, lately
Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in South Africa, by the names, styles, and titles
of Viscount St. Pierre and Earl Roberts of Kandahar in Afghanistan, and Pretoria in the Transvaal
Colony, and of the City of Waterford; with remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully
begotten: And in default of male issue with remainder to his elder daughter, the Honourable
Aileen Mary Roberts, Spinster, to hold the names, styles, and titles of Viscountess St. Pierre and
Countess Roberts of Kandahar in Afghanistan, and Pretoria in the Transvaal Colony, and of the 
City of Waterford ; and after her decease to the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten, by
styles, and titles of Viscount St. Pierre and Earl Roberts of Kandahar in Afghanistan, and Pretoria
in the Transvaal Colony, and of the City of Waterford: With the like remainder in default of such
issue of the said Aileen Mary Roberts to the Honourable Ada Edwina Stewart Roberts, Spinster,
younger daughter of the said Baron Roberts, and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten ;
With the like remainder in default of such issue to every other younger daughter lawfully 
begotten of the said Baron Roberts, successively in order of seniority of age and priority of 
birth, and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten."
 
 
Copyright © 2020 Maltagenealogy.com