Last updated 01/05/2020
Date Rank Order Name Born Died Age
c 1070 E 1 Ralph de Gael by 1046 c 1097
to Created Earl of Norfolk c 1070
1074 The peerage was forfeited in 1074
c 1140 E 1 Hugh le Bigod by 1100 c 1177
Created Earl of Norfolk c 1140
c 1177 2 Roger le Bigod by 1150 1221
1221 3 Hugh le Bigod Feb 1225
Feb 1225 4 Roger le Bigod c 1213 4 Jul 1270
4 Jul 1270 5 Roger le Bigod 1240 11 Dec 1306 66
to He surrendered the peerage to the Crown in 1302
11 Dec 1306 and obtained a re-grant. The title became extinct
on his death. For information on a subsequent
claim to this peerage, see the note at the foot
of this page
16 Dec 1312 E 1 Thomas of Brotherton 1 Jun 1300 4 Aug 1338 38
Created Earl of Norfolk 16 Dec 1312
5th son of Edward I
4 Aug 1338 E 2 Margaret Manny c 1320 24 Mar 1399
29 Sep 1397 D[L] 1 Created Duchess of Norfolk for life 29 Sep 1397
to On her death the Dukedom became extinct
24 Mar 1400 whilst the Earldom passed to -
24 Mar 1399 3 Thomas Mowbray 22 Mar 1366 22 Sep 1399 33
29 Sep 1397 D 1 Created Duke of Norfolk 29 Sep 1397
KG 1384
22 Sep 1399 4 Thomas Mowbray 17 Sep 1385 8 Jun 1405 19
8 Jun 1405 5 John Mowbray 1390 19 Oct 1432 42
3 KG 1421
19 Oct 1432 6 John Mowbray 12 Sep 1415 6 Nov 1461 46
4 KG 1451
6 Nov 1461 7 John Mowbray 18 Oct 1444 17 Jan 1476 31
to 5 KG 1472
17 Jan 1476 On his death the Dukedom became extinct
whilst the Earldom passed to -
17 Jan 1476 8 Anne Plantagenet 10 Dec 1472 16 Jan 1481 8
to Peerage extinct on her death
16 Jan 1481
12 Jun 1476 D 1 Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York 22 Jun 1483
to Created Earl of Nottingham and Duke
22 Jun 1483 of Norfolk 12 Jun 1476
Peerages extinct on his death
28 Jun 1483 D 1 John Howard,1st Lord Howard c 1430 22 Aug 1485
to Created Duke of Norfolk 28 Jun 1483
22 Aug 1485 KG 1472
He was attainted and the peerages
1 Feb 1514 2 Thomas Howard,1st Earl of Surrey c 1443 21 May 1524
Restored to the Dukedom 1514
Treasurer of England 1501-1522. KG 1483
21 May 1524 3 Thomas Howard 1473 25 Aug 1554 81
to Lord High Admiral 1513-1525. Lord
1547 Lieutenant of Ireland 1520-1523. KG 1510
1553 He was attainted and the peerages
forfeited in 1547 but restored in 1553
25 Aug 1554 4 Thomas Howard 10 Mar 1536 2 Jun 1572 36
to Lord Lieutenant Norfolk and Suffolk 1559
2 Jun 1572 KG 1559
He was attainted and the peerages
6 Jun 1644 E 1 Thomas Howard,14th Earl of Arundel and
4th Earl of Surrey 7 Jul 1585 4 Oct 1646 61
Created Earl of Norfolk 6 Jun 1644
KG 1611
4 Oct 1646 2 Henry Frederick Howard 15 Aug 1608 17 Apr 1652 43
17 Apr 1652 3 Thomas Howard 9 Mar 1627 13 Dec 1677 50
29 Dec 1660 D 5 He was restored to the dukedom in 1660
13 Dec 1677 6 Henry Howard 12 Jul 1628 11 Jan 1684 55
Created Baron Howard of Castle
Rising 7 Mar 1669 and Earl of Norwich
19 Oct 1672
11 Jan 1684 7 Henry Howard 11 Jan 1654 2 Apr 1701 47
Lord Lieutenant Berkshire and Surrey 1682-1701
and Norfolk 1683-1701. KG 1685 PC 1689
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Mowbray 14 Jan 1678
2 Apr 1701 8 Thomas Howard 11 Dec 1683 23 Dec 1732 49
23 Dec 1732 9 Edward Howard 5 Jun 1686 20 Sep 1777 91
20 Sep 1777 10 Charles Howard 1 Dec 1720 31 Aug 1786 65
31 Aug 1786 11 Charles Howard 14 Mar 1746 16 Dec 1815 69
MP for Carlisle 1780-1786. Lord Lieutenant
W Riding Yorkshire 1782-1798 and Sussex
1807-1815. PC 1783
16 Dec 1815 12 Bernard Edward Howard 21 Nov 1765 16 Mar 1842 76
PC 1830 KG 1834
16 Mar 1842 13 Henry Charles Howard 12 Aug 1791 18 Feb 1856 64
MP for Horsham 1829-1832 and Sussex
West 1832-1841. PC 1837 KG 1848
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Maltravers 16 Aug 1841
18 Feb 1856 14 Henry Granville Fitzalan-Howard 7 Nov 1815 25 Nov 1860 45
MP for Arundel 1837-1851 and Limerick
25 Nov 1860 15 Henry Fitzalan-Howard 27 Dec 1847 11 Feb 1917 69
Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1905-1917. Postmaster
General 1895-1900. KG 1886 PC 1895
11 Feb 1917 16 Bernard Marmaduke Fitzalan-Howard 30 May 1908 31 Jan 1975 66
Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1949-1974 and Sussex
West 1974-1975 PC 1936 KG 1937
31 Jan 1975 17 Miles Francis Stapleton Fitzalan-Howard 21 Jul 1915 24 Jun 2002 86
KG 1983
He had previously succeeded as 12th Lord
Beaumont (qv) in 1971 and as 4th Baron Howard
of Glossop (qv) in 1972
24 Jun 2002 18 Edward William Fitzalan-Howard 2 Dec 1956
13 Oct 1944 B 1 Montagu Collet Norman 6 Sep 1871 4 Feb 1950 78
to Created Baron Norman 13 Oct 1944
4 Feb 1950 Governor of the Bank of England 1920-1944
PC 1923
Peerage extinct on his death
24 Jan 1963 B 1 Sir Norman Craven Brook 29 Apr 1902 15 Jun 1967 65
to Created Baron Normanbrook 24 Jan 1963
15 Jun 1967 PC 1953
Peerage extinct on his death
23 Mar 1703 D 1 John Sheffield,3rd Earl of Mulgrave 8 Sep 1647 24 Feb 1721 73
Created Marquess of Normanby 10 May 1694
and Duke of the County of Buckingham and
of Normanby 23 Mar 1703
See "Buckinghamshire"
7 Sep 1812 V 1 Henry Phipps,3rd Baron Mulgrave 14 Feb 1755 7 Apr 1831 76
Created Viscount Normanby and Earl
of Mulgrave 7 Sep 1812
7 Apr 1831 2 Constantine Henry Phipps 15 May 1797 28 Jul 1863 66
25 Jun 1838 M 1 Created Marquess of Normanby
25 Jun 1838
MP for Scarborough 1818-1820, Higham
Ferrers 1822-1826 and Malton 1826-1830.
Governor of Jamaica 1832-1834. Lord Privy
Seal 1834. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1835-
1839. Secretary of State for the Colonies
1839. Home Secretary 1839-1841. PC 1832
KG 1851
28 Jul 1863 2 George Augustus Constantine Phipps 23 Jul 1819 3 Apr 1890 70
MP for Scarborough 1847-1851 and 1852-
1857. Governor of Nova Scotia 1858-1863,
Queensland 1871-1874, New Zealand 1874-
1878 and Victoria 1879-1884. PC 1851
3 Apr 1890 3 Constantine Charles Henry Phipps 29 Aug 1846 25 Aug 1932 85
25 Aug 1932 4 Oswald Constantine John Phipps 29 Jul 1912 30 Jan 1994 81
KG 1985 Lord Lieutenant Yorkshire N Riding
Yorkshire 1965-1974 and Yorkshire North
30 Jan 1994 5 Constantine Edmund Walter Phipps 24 Feb 1954
6 Jan 1947 B[L] 1 Wilfred Guild Normand 6 May 1884 5 Oct 1962 78
to Created Baron Normand for life 6 Jan 1947
5 Oct 1962 Solicitor General [S] 1929. Lord Advocate
1933-1935. Lord Justice General of
Scotland 1935-1947. Lord of Appeal in
Ordinary 1947-1953. MP for Edinburgh West
1931-1935. PC 1933
Peerage extinct on his death
4 Feb 1806 E[I] 1 Charles Agar 22 Dec 1736 14 Jul 1809 72
Created Baron Somerton 12 Jun 1795,
Viscount Somerton 30 Dec 1800 and
Earl of Normanton 4 Feb 1806
Archbishop of Cashel 1779-1801 and
Dublin 1801-1809. PC [I] 1779
14 Jul 1809 2 Welbore Ellis Agar 20 Nov 1778 26 Aug 1868 89
26 Aug 1868 3 James Charles Herbert Welbore Ellis Agar 17 Sep 1818 19 Dec 1896 78
Created Baron Somerton 9 Apr 1873
MP for Wilton 1841-1852
19 Dec 1896 4 Sidney James Agar 9 Apr 1865 25 Nov 1933 68
25 Nov 1933 5 Edward John Sidney Christian Welbore
Ellis Agar 29 Mar 1910 28 Jan 1967 56
28 Jan 1967 6 Shaun James Christian Welbore Ellis Agar 21 Aug 1945
He succeeded to the Barony of Mendip (qv)
in 1974
22 Aug 1957 B 1 Sir Charles Willoughby Moke Norrie 26 Sep 1893 25 May 1977 83
Created Baron Norrie 22 Aug 1957
Governor of South Australia 1944-1952.
Governor General of New Zealand 1952-1957
25 May 1977 2 George Willoughby Moke Norrie 27 Apr 1936
8 May 1572 B 1 Henry Norris c 1530 Jul 1601
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Norris de Rycote 8 May 1572
MP for Berkshire 1547-1552 and Oxfordshire
Jul 1601 2 Francis Norris,later [1621] 1st Earl of Berkshire 6 Jul 1582 29 Jan 1624 41
29 Jan 1624 3 Elizabeth Wray 28 Nov 1645
28 Nov 1645 4 Bridget Bertie 12 May 1627 24 Mar 1657 29
24 Mar 1657 5 James Bertie 22 May 1699
He was created Earl of Abingdon (qv) in
1682 with which title this peerage then
17 Feb 1554 B 1 Edward North c 1496 31 Dec 1564
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
North 17 Feb 1554
MP for Cambridgeshire 1547-1552 and 1553.
Lord Lieutenant Cambridge 1559
31 Dec 1564 2 Roger North c 1529 3 Dec 1600
MP for Cambridgeshire 1555,1559 and 1563-
3 Dec 1600 3 Dudley North 18 Sep 1582 16 Jan 1666 83
16 Jan 1666 4 Dudley North 1 Nov 1602 24 Jun 1677 74
MP for Horsham 1628-1629 and
Cambridgeshire 1640-1648 and 1660
24 Jun 1677 5 Charles North c 1636 Jan 1690
Jan 1690 6 William North 22 Dec 1673 31 Oct 1734 60
Lord Lieutenant Cambridge 1711-1715 PC 1711
31 Oct 1734 7 Francis North,later [1752] 1st Earl of Guilford 13 Apr 1704 4 Aug 1790 86
4 Aug 1790 8 Frederick North,2nd Earl of Guilford 13 Apr 1732 5 Aug 1792 60
5 Aug 1792 9 George Augustus North,3rd Earl of Guilford 11 Sep 1757 20 Apr 1802 44
to On his death the peerage fell into
20 Apr 1802 abeyance
11 Sep 1841 10 Susan North 6 Feb 1797 5 Mar 1884 87
Abeyance terminated in her favour
5 Mar 1884 11 William Henry John North 5 Oct 1836 8 Apr 1932 95
8 Apr 1932 12 William Frederick John North 13 Oct 1860 10 Dec 1938 78
10 Dec 1938 13 John Dudley North 7 Jun 1917 19 Dec 1941 24
to On his death the peerage again fell into
19 Dec 1941 abeyance
9 Nov 1706 V 1 George Augustus 30 Oct 1683 25 Oct 1760 76
to Created Baron of Tewkesbury,Viscount
1727 Northallerton,Earl of Milford Haven
and Marquess and Duke of Cambridge
9 Nov 1706
He succeeded as George II in 1727 when the
peerage merged with the Crown
16 Jul 1917 M 1 Adolphus Charles Alexander Ladislaus
Cambridge 13 Aug 1868 24 Oct 1927 59
Created Viscount Northallerton,Earl
of Eltham and Marquess of Cambridge
16 Jul 1917
See "Cambridge"
1072 E 1 Waltheof 31 May 1075
to Created Earl of Northampton 1072
31 May 1075 Peerage extinct on his death
c 1080 E 1 Simon Saint-Lis 1109
to Created Earl of Northampton c 1080
1109 On his death the peerage appears to have
reverted to the Crown until -
c 1140 2 Simon Saint-Lis Aug 1153
Aug 1153 3 Simon Saint-Lis c 1138 1184
to Peerage extinct on his death
16 Mar 1337 E 1 William de Bohun c 1310 16 Sep 1360
Created Earl of Northampton
16 Mar 1337
KG 1350
16 Sep 1360 2 Humphrey de Bohun 1341 16 Jan 1373 31
to KG 1365
16 Jan 1373 On his death the peerage reverted to the
16 Feb 1547 M 1 William Parr,Earl of Essex 14 Aug 1513 28 Oct 1571 58
to Created Marquess of Northampton
Aug 1553 16 Feb 1547
13 Jan 1559 The title was forfeited 1553 but restored
to 13 Jan 1559.
28 Oct 1571 MP for Northamptonshire 1529-1536.
KG 1543
Peerage extinct on his death
13 Mar 1604 E 1 Henry Howard 25 Feb 1540 15 Jun 1614 74
to Created Baron Howard of Marnhull
15 Jun 1614 and Earl of Northampton 13 Mar 1604
Lord Privy Seal 1608-1614. KG 1605
Peerages extinct on his death
2 Aug 1618 E 1 William Compton,2nd Lord Compton by 1572 24 Jun 1630
Created Earl of Northampton
2 Aug 1618
KG 1628
24 Jun 1630 2 Spencer Compton May 1601 19 Mar 1643 41
MP for Ludlow 1621-1622. Lord Lieutenant
Warwick and Gloucester 1630
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Compton 1 Apr 1626
19 Mar 1643 3 James Compton 19 Aug 1622 15 Dec 1681 59
Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1660-1681
15 Dec 1681 4 George Compton 18 Oct 1664 15 Apr 1727 62
Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1686-1687 and
1689-1715. PC 1702
15 Apr 1727 5 James Compton 2 May 1687 3 Oct 1754 67
MP for Warwickshire 1710-1711
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Compton 28 Dec 1711
3 Oct 1754 6 George Compton 1692 6 Dec 1758 66
MP for Tamworth 1727 and Northampton
6 Dec 1758 7 Charles Compton 22 Jul 1737 18 Oct 1763 26
18 Oct 1763 8 Spencer Compton 16 Aug 1738 7 Apr 1796 57
MP for Northampton 1762-1763. Lord
Lieutenant Northampton 1771-1796
7 Apr 1796 9 Charles Compton 24 Mar 1760 24 May 1828 68
7 Sep 1812 M 1 Created Baron Wilmington, Earl
Compton and Marquess of
Northampton 7 Sep 1812
MP for Northampton 1784-1796. Lord
Lieutenant Northampton 1796-1828
24 May 1828 2 Spencer Joshua Alwyne Compton 2 Jan 1790 17 Jan 1851 61
MP for Northampton 1812-1820
17 Jan 1851 3 Charles Douglas-Compton 26 May 1816 3 Mar 1877 60
3 Mar 1877 4 William Compton 20 Aug 1818 11 Sep 1897 79
KG 1885
11 Sep 1897 5 William George Spencer Scott Compton 23 Apr 1851 15 Jun 1913 62
MP for Stratford upon Avon 1885-1886 and
Barnsley 1889-1897. Lord Lieutenant Warwick
1912-1913 KG 1908
15 Jun 1913 6 William Bingham Compton 6 Aug 1885 30 Jan 1978 92
30 Jan 1978 7 Spencer Douglas David Compton 2 Apr 1946
5 Nov 1884 B 1 Sir Walter Charles James,2nd baronet 3 Jun 1816 4 Feb 1893 76
Created Baron Northbourne 5 Nov 1884
MP for Hull 1837-1847
4 Feb 1893 2 Walter Henry James 25 Mar 1846 27 Jan 1923 76
MP for Gateshead 1874-1893
27 Jan 1923 3 Walter John James 2 Sep 1869 22 Dec 1932 63
22 Dec 1932 4 Walter Ernest Christopher James 18 Jan 1896 17 Jun 1982 86
17 Jun 1982 5 Christopher George Walter James [Elected 18 Feb 1926 8 Sep 2019 93
hereditary peer 1999-]


8 Sep 2019 

6 Charles Walter Henri James 1960
4 Jan 1866 B 1 Sir Francis Thornhill Baring,3rd baronet 20 Apr 1796 6 Sep 1866 70
Created Baron Northbrook 4 Jan 1866
MP for Portsmouth 1826-1865. Chancellor
of the Exchequer 1839-1841. First Lord of
the Admiralty 1849-1852. PC 1839
6 Sep 1866 2 Thomas George Baring 22 Jan 1826 15 Nov 1904 78
10 Jun 1876 E 1 Created Viscount Baring and Earl of
Northbrook 10 Jun 1876
MP for Penrhyn and Falmouth 1857-1866.
Viceroy of India 1872-1876. First Lord of
the Admiralty 1880-1885. PC 1869. Lord
Lieutenant Hampshire 1890-1904
15 Nov 1904 3 Francis George Baring 6 Dec 1850 12 Apr 1929 78
to 2 MP for Winchester 1880-1885 and Bedford
12 Apr 1929 North 1886-1892.
On his death the Earldom became extinct
whilst the Barony passed to -
12 Apr 1929 4 Francis Arthur Baring 20 Jul 1882 15 Dec 1947 65
15 Dec 1947 5 Francis John Baring 31 May 1915 4 Dec 1990 75
4 Dec 1990 6 Francis Thomas Baring [Elected hereditary peer 21 Feb 1954
13 Jan 1964 B[L] 1 Frances Joan Davidson 29 May 1894 25 Nov 1985 91
to Created Baroness Northchurch for life
25 Nov 1985 13 Jan 1964
MP for Hemel Hempstead 1937-1959
Peerage extinct on her death
14 Jan 1918 V 1 Sir Alfred Charles William Harmsworth,
to 1st baronet 15 Jul 1865 14 Aug 1922 57
14 Aug 1922 Created Baron Northcliffe 27 Dec 1905
and Viscount Northcliffe 14 Jan 1918
Peerages extinct on his death
For further information on the widow of Lord
Northcliffe,see the note at the foot of this page
20 Jan 1900 B 1 Sir Henry Stafford Northcote,1st baronet 18 Nov 1846 29 Sep 1911 64
to Created Baron Northcote 20 Jan 1900
29 Sep 1911 MP for Exeter 1880-1899. Governor of
Bombay 1899-1903. Governor General of
Australia 1904-1908 PC 1909
Peerage extinct on his death
1 Nov 1647 E[S] 1 John Carnegie,1st Lord Lour c 1580 19 Jan 1667
Created Lord Lour and Eglismauldie
and Earl of Ethie 1 Nov 1647
He exchanged these titles for those of Earl of
Northesk and Lord Rosehill on 25 October 1666
19 Jan 1667 2 David Carnegie by 1627 12 Dec 1679
12 Dec 1679 3 David Carnegie Nov 1643 Oct 1688 44
Oct 1688 4 David Carnegie by 1685 14 Jan 1729
14 Jan 1729 5 David Carnegie 11 Jun 1701 24 Jun 1741 40
24 Jun 1741 6 George Carnegie 2 Aug 1716 22 Jan 1792 75
22 Jan 1792 7 William Carnegie 10 Apr 1758 28 May 1831 73
28 May 1831 8 William Hopetoun Carnegie 16 Oct 1794 5 Dec 1878 84
5 Dec 1878 9 George John Carnegie 1 Dec 1843 9 Sep 1891 47
9 Sep 1891 10 David John Carnegie 1 Dec 1865 5 Dec 1921 56
5 Dec 1921 11 David Ludovic George Hopetoun Carnegie 24 Sep 1901 7 Nov 1963 62
7 Nov 1963 12 John Douglas Carnegie 16 Feb 1895 22 Jul 1975 80
22 Jul 1975 13 Robert Andrew Carnegie 24 Jun 1926 26 Jan 1994 67
26 Jan 1994 14 David John MacRae Carnegie [Elected hereditary 3 Nov 1954 28 Mar 2010 55
peer 1999-2010]
28 Mar 2010 15 Patrick Charles Carnegy 23 Sep 1940
20 Jan 1976 B[L] 1 William Donald Chapman 25 Nov 1923 26 Apr 2013 89
to Created Baron Northfield for life 20 Jan 1976
26 Apr 2013 MP for Northfield 1951-1970.
Peerage extinct on his death
19 May 1764 E 1 Robert Henley 1708 14 Jan 1772 63
Created Baron Henley 27 Mar 1760 and
Earl of Northington 19 May 1764
MP for Bath 1747-1757. Attorney General
1756-1757. Lord Chancellor 1757-1766.
Lord Lieutenant Hampshire 1764-1771. Lord
President of the Council 1766-1767. PC 1757
14 Jan 1772 2 Robert Henley 3 Jan 1747 5 Jul 1786 39
to MP for Hampshire 1768-1772. Viceroy of
5 Jul 1786 Ireland 1783-1784. KT 1773 PC 1783
Peerage extinct on his death
28 Jun 1885 B 1 Anthony Henley Henley,3rd Baron Henley 12 Apr 1825 27 Nov 1898 73
Created Baron Northington 28 Jun 1885
See "Henley" with which title this peerage
remains united
5 Jul 1791 V[I] 1 Thomas Knox 20 Apr 1729 5 Nov 1818 89
Created Baron Welles 8 Jan 1781 and
Viscount Northland 5 Jul 1791
5 Nov 1818 2 Thomas Knox 5 Aug 1754 26 Apr 1840 85
He was created Earl of Ranfurly (qv)
in 1831 with which title these peerages
then merged
1 May 2000 B[L] 1 Lindsay Patricia Granshaw 21 Aug 1954
Created Baroness Northover for life
1 May 2000
PC 2015
16 Jul 1377 E 1 Henry Percy 1342 19 Feb 1408 65
to Created Earl of Northumberland
1406 16 Jul 1377
KG c 1368
The peerage was forfeited in 1406
11 Nov 1414 2 Henry Percy 3 Feb 1393 23 May 1455 62
Restored to the peerage 1414
23 May 1455 3 Henry Percy 25 Jul 1421 29 Mar 1461 39
to He was attainted and the peerage forfeited
29 Mar 1461
c 1470 4 Henry Percy c 1449 28 Apr 1489
Restored to the peerage c 1470
KG 1474
28 Apr 1489 5 Henry Algernon Percy 13 Jan 1478 19 May 1527 49
KG 1495
19 May 1527 6 Henry Percy c 1502 30 Jun 1537
to KG 1531
30 Jun 1537 On his death the heir to the peerage was
under attainder with the result that the
peerage was forfeited
11 Oct 1551 D 1 John Dudley c 1505 22 Aug 1553
to Created Viscount Lisle 12 Mar 1543,
22 Aug 1553 Earl of Warwick 16 Feb 1547 and Duke
of Northumberland 11 Oct 1551
KG 1543
He was attainted and the peerage forfeited
1 May 1557 E 1 Thomas Percy 10 Jun 1528 22 Aug 1572 44
Created Baron Percy 30 Apr 1557 and
Earl of Northumberland 1 May 1557
KG 1563
22 Aug 1572 2 Henry Percy c 1532 21 Jun 1585
21 Jun 1585 3 Henry Percy Apr 1564 5 Nov 1632 68
KG 1593. Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1604
5 Nov 1632 4 Algernon Percy 13 Oct 1602 13 Oct 1668 66
MP for Sussex 1624-1625 and Chichester
1625-1627. KG 1635 Lord Lieutenant
Northumberland and Sussex 1660-1668
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Percy 28 Mar 1626
13 Oct 1668 5 Josceline Percy 4 Jul 1644 31 May 1670 25
to Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1660-1670
31 May 1670 and Sussex 1668-1670
Peerage extinct on his death
For further information regarding a subsequent
claim to this peerage, see the note at the
foot of this page.
6 Apr 1683 D 1 George Fitzroy 28 Dec 1665 3 Jul 1716 50
to Created Baron of Pontefract,
3 Jul 1716 Viscount Falmouth and Earl of
Northumberland 1 Oct 1674 and Duke
of Northumberland 6 Apr 1683
Illegitimate son of Charles II. Lord
Lieutenant Surrey 1702-1714 and Berkshire
KG 1684 PC 1713
Peerages extinct on his death
2 Oct 1749 E 1 Algernon Seymour,7th Duke of Somerset 11 Nov 1684 7 Feb 1750 65
Created Baron Warkworth and Earl of
Northumberland 2 Oct 1749, and Baron
Cockermouth and Earl of Egremont
3 Oct 1749
For details of the special remainders included in the
creation of the Barony of Warkworth and Earldom
of Northumberland, see the note at the foot of
this page
7 Feb 1750 2 Sir Hugh Percy,4th baronet c 1714 6 Jun 1786
22 Oct 1766 D 1 Created Earl Percy and Duke of
Northumberland 22 Oct 1766 and
Baron Lovaine 28 Jan 1784
MP for Middlesex 1740-1750. Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland 1763-1765. Lord
Lieutenant Northumberland 1753-1786 and
Middlesex 1763-1786. KG 1756 PC 1762
6 Jun 1786 2 Hugh Percy 14 Aug 1742 10 Jul 1817 74
MP for Westminster 1763-1776. Lord
Lieutenant Northumberland 1786-1798 and
1802-1817. KG 1788
10 Jul 1817 3 Hugh Percy 20 Apr 1785 11 Feb 1847 61
MP for Buckingham 1806, Westminster 1806,
Launceston 1806-1807 and Northumberland
1807-1812. Lord Lieutenant Northumberland
1817-1847. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
1829-1830. KG 1819 PC 1825
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Percy 12 Mar 1812
11 Feb 1847 4 Algernon Percy 19 Dec 1792 12 Feb 1865 72
Created Baron Prudhoe 27 Nov 1816
First Lord of the Admiralty 1852. PC 1852
KG 1853
12 Feb 1865 5 George Percy,2nd Earl of Beverley 22 Jun 1778 21 Aug 1867 89
MP for Beeralston 1799-1830. PC 1842
21 Aug 1867 6 Algernon George Percy 20 May 1810 2 Jan 1899 88
MP for Beeralston 1831-1832 and
Northumberland North 1852-1867. Vice
President of the Board of Trade 1859.
Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1877-1899
Lord Privy Seal 1878-1880. PC 1859 KG 1886
2 Jan 1899 7 Henry George Percy 29 May 1846 14 May 1918 71
MP for Northumberland North 1868-1885.
Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1904-1918
KG 1899. PC 1874
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Lovaine 22 Jul 1887
14 May 1918 8 Alan Ian Percy 17 Apr 1880 23 Aug 1930 50
Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1918-1930
KG 1925
23 Aug 1930 9 Henry George Alan Percy 15 Jul 1912 21 May 1940 27
21 May 1940 10 Hugh Algernon Percy 6 Apr 1914 11 Oct 1988 74
Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1956-1984
KG 1959. PC 1973
11 Oct 1988 11 Henry Alan Walter Richard Percy 1 Jul 1953 31 Oct 1995 42
31 Oct 1995 12 Ralph George Algernon Percy 16 Nov 1956
26 Oct 1797 B 1 Sir John Rushout,5th baronet 23 Jul 1738 20 Oct 1800 62
Created Baron Northwick 26 Oct 1797
MP for Evesham 1761-1796
20 Oct 1800 2 John Rushout 16 Feb 1770 20 Jan 1859 88
20 Jan 1859 3 George Rushout 30 Aug 1811 18 Nov 1887 76
to MP for Evesham 1837-1841 and
18 Nov 1887 Worcestershire East 1847-1859
Peerage extinct on his death
8 Jan 1313 B 1 John de Northwode 1254 26 May 1319 64
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Northwode 8 Jan 1313
26 May 1319 2 Roger de Northwode 1307 7 Nov 1361 54
7 Nov 1361 3 John de Northwode 27 Feb 1378
to Peerage extinct on his death
27 Feb 1378
16 Apr 1878 B 1 Sir Charles Bowyer Adderley 2 Aug 1814 28 Mar 1905 90
Created Baron Norton 16 Apr 1878
MP for Staffordshire North 1841-1878.
President of the Board of Health 1858-1859
President of the Board of Trade 1874-1878
PC 1858
28 Mar 1905 2 Charles Leigh Adderley 10 Mar 1846 4 Dec 1926 80
4 Dec 1926 3 Ralph Bowyer Adderley 9 Oct 1872 17 Oct 1933 61
17 Oct 1933 4 Ronald Wollstan Fleetwood Adderley 15 Oct 1885 4 Jan 1944 58
4 Jan 1944 5 Henry Arden Adderley 26 Sep 1854 1 Jan 1945 90
1 Jan 1945 6 Hubert Bowyer Arden Adderley 21 Feb 1886 17 Feb 1961 74
17 Feb 1961 7 John Arden Adderley 24 Nov 1915 24 Sep 1993 77
24 Sep 1993 8 James Nigel Arden Adderley 2 Jun 1947
1 Aug 1998 B[L] 1 Philip Norton 5 Mar 1951
Created Baron Norton of Louth for life
1 Aug 1998
25 Feb 1342 B 1 John de Norwich 15 Aug 1362
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Norwich 25 Feb 1342
15 Aug 1362 2 John de Norwich 1348 1374 26
to Peerage extinct on his death
24 Oct 1626 E 1 Edward Denny,1st Lord Denny de Waltham 14 Aug 1569 27 Sep 1637 68
to Created Earl of Norwich 24 Oct 1626
27 Sep 1637 Peerage extinct on his death
28 Nov 1644 E 1 George Goring,1st Lord Goring c 1583 6 Jan 1663
Created Earl of Norwich 28 Nov 1644
MP for Lewes 1621-1628
6 Jan 1663 2 Charles Goring c 1615 3 Mar 1671
to Peerage extinct on his death
3 Mar 1671
19 Oct 1672 E 1 Henry Howard 12 Jul 1628 11 Jan 1684 55
Created Baron Howard of Castle
Rising 7 Mar 1669 and Earl of Norwich
19 Oct 1672
See "Norfolk" - these creations became
extinct in 1777
2 Jul 1784 E 1 Alexander Gordon,4th Duke of Gordon 18 Jun 1743 17 Jun 1827 83
Created Baron Gordon of Huntley and
Earl of Norwich 2 Jul 1784
See "Gordon"
5 Jul 1952 V 1 Sir Alfred Duff Cooper 22 Feb 1890 1 Jan 1954 63
Created Viscount Norwich 5 Jul 1952
MP for Oldham 1924-1929 and St.Georges,
Westminster 1931-1945. Financial Secretary
to the Treasury 1934-1935. Secretary of
State for War 1935-1937. First Lord of the
Admiralty 1937-1938. Minister of Information
1940-1941. Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster 1941-1943. PC 1935
1 Jan 1954 2 John Julius Cooper 15 Sep 1929 1 Jun 2018 88
1 Jun 2018 3 Jason Charles Duff Bede Cooper 27 Oct 1959
7 Nov 1797 B[I] 1 Grace Toler 21 Jul 1822
Created Baroness Norwood 7 Nov 1797
21 Jul 1822 2 Daniel Toler c 1780 30 Jan 1832
He succeeded to the barony of Norbury (qv) in 1831
30 Jan 1832 3 Hector John Graham Toler 27 Jun 1781 3 Jan 1839 57
He had previously succeeded to the Earldom of
Norbury (qv) in 1831 with which title this peerage
then merged and so remains
15 Jul 1377 E 1 John de Mowbray,5th Lord Mowbray and 6th 1 Aug 1365 10 Feb 1382 16
to Lord Segrave
10 Feb 1382 Created Earl of Nottingham
15 Jul 1377
Peerage extinct on his death
12 Feb 1383 E 1 Thomas de Mowbray 22 Mar 1366 22 Sep 1399 33
Created Earl of Nottingham 12 Feb
1383 and Duke of Norfolk 29 Sep 1397
See "Norfolk" - extinct 1476
12 Jun 1476 D 1 Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York 22 Jun 1483
to Created Earl of Nottingham and Duke
22 Jun 1483 of Norfolk 12 Jun 1476
Peerages extinct on his death
28 Jun 1483 E 1 William de Berkeley 1426 14 Feb 1492 65
to Created Viscount Berkeley 21 Apr 1481,
14 Feb 1492 Earl of Nottingham 28 Jun 1483, and
Marquess of Berkeley 28 Jan 1489
Peerages extinct on his death
18 Jun 1525 E 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
Peerages extinct on his death
22 Oct 1596 E 1 Charles Howard,2nd Baron Howard of
Effingham c 1536 14 Dec 1624
Created Earl of Nottingham
22 Oct 1596
MP for Surrey 1562-1567 and 1572-1573.
KG 1575
14 Dec 1624 2 Charles Howard 17 Sep 1579 3 Oct 1642 63
MP for Bletchingley 1597, Surrey 1597-
1598, Sussex 1601-1611 and Shoreham
1614. Lord Lieutenant Surrey 1621-1635
3 Oct 1642 3 Charles Howard 25 Dec 1610 26 Apr 1681 70
to Peerage extinct on his death
26 Apr 1681
12 May 1681 E 1 Sir Heneage Finch,1st baronet 23 Dec 1621 18 Dec 1682 60
Created Baron Finch of Daventry
10 Jan 1673 and Earl of Nottingham
12 May 1681
MP for Canterbury 1660 and Oxford
University 1661-1673. Solicitor General
1660. Attorney General 1670-1673. Lord
Chancellor 1675-1682
18 Dec 1682 2 Daniel Finch 2 Jul 1647 1 Jan 1730 82
He succeeded to the Earldom of Winchilsea
(qv) in 1729 with which title this peerage
continues to be united
6 Dec 1920 V 1 Sir Ronald Crauford Munro-Ferguson 6 Mar 1860 30 Mar 1934 74
to Created Viscount Novar 6 Dec 1920
30 Mar 1934 MP for Ross and Cromarty 1884-1885 and
Leith 1886-1914. Governor General of
Australia 1914-1920. Secretary of State
for Scotland 1922-1924. PC 1910 KT 1926
Peerage extinct on his death
24 Jan 1938 V 1 Sir William Richard Morris,1st baronet 10 Oct 1877 22 Aug 1963 85
to Created Baron Nuffield 13 Jan 1934
22 Aug 1963 and Viscount Nuffield 24 Jan 1938
CH 1958
Peerages extinct on his death
21 Jul 1776 E[I] 1 Robert Nugent 1702 13 Oct 1788 86
Created Baron Nugent and Viscount
Clare 19 Jan 1767 and Earl Nugent
21 Jul 1776
For details of the special remainder included in the
creation of the Earldom of 1776, see the note at the
foot of this page
MP for St.Mawes 1741-1754 and 1774-1784, and
Bristol 1754-1774. President of the Board of
Trade 1766-1768. PC 1759 PC [I] 1768
13 Oct 1788 2 George Nugent-Temple-Grenville 17 Jun 1753 11 Feb 1813 59
He had previously been created Marquess of
Buckingham (qv) in 1784 with which title this
peerage then merged until its extinction in 1889
26 Dec 1800 B[I] 1 Mary Elizabeth Nugent-Temple-Grenville,
Marchioness of Buckingham 16 Mar 1812
Created Baroness Nugent 29 Dec 1800
For details of the special remainder included in the
creation of this peerage,see the note at the
foot of this page
16 Mar 1812 2 George Nugent-Grenville 31 Dec 1788 26 Nov 1850 61
to MP for Buckingham 1810-1812 and Aylesbury
26 Nov 1850 1812-1832 and 1847-1850
Peerage extinct on his death
22 Aug 1960 B 1 Sir Terence Edmund Gascoigne Nugent 11 Aug 1895 27 Apr 1973 77
to Created Baron Nugent 22 Aug 1960
27 Apr 1973 Peerage extinct on his death
31 May 1966 B[L] 1 Sir George Richard Hodges Nugent,1st baronet 6 Jun 1907 16 Mar 1994 86
to Created Baron Nugent of Guildford for life
16 Mar 1994 31 May 1966
MP for Guildford 1950-1966. PC 1962
Peerage extinct on his death
16 Jan 1906 B 1 Charles Henry Wilson 22 Apr 1833 28 Oct 1907 74
Created Baron Nunburnholme
16 Jan 1906
MP for Hull 1874-1885 and Hull West
28 Oct 1907 2 Charles Henry Wellesley Wilson 24 Jan 1875 15 Aug 1924 49
MP for Hull West 1906-1907. Lord
Lieutenant E Riding Yorkshire 1908-1924
15 Aug 1924 3 Charles John Wilson 25 Apr 1904 1 Jan 1974 69
1 Jan 1974 4 Ben Charles Wilson 16 Jan 1928 28 Jul 1998 70
28 Jul 1998 5 Charles Thomas Wilson 27 May 1935 20 Nov 2000 65
20 Nov 2000 6 Stephen Charles Wilson 29 Nov 1973
1 Dec 1749 V 1 Simon Harcourt,2nd Viscount Harcourt 1714 16 Sep 1777 63
Created Viscount Nuneham and Earl
Harcourt 1 Dec 1749
See "Harcourt"
3 Jan 1917 V 1 Lewis Harcourt 31 Jan 1863 24 Feb 1922 59
Created Baron Nuneham and Viscount
Harcourt 3 Jan 1917
See "Harcourt"
19 Jul 2010 B[L] 1 Susan Jane Nye 17 May 1955
Created Baroness Nye for life 19 Jul 2010
The claim to the Earldom of Norfolk made by Lord Mowbray
Between 1901 and 1906 the House of Lords Committee for Privileges heard a petition made by
Lord Mowbray for the termination of the abeyance of the earldom of Norfolk which had been
created in 1312 for Thomas de Brotherton, son of Edward I. Mowbray conceded that the earldom
of Norfolk created in 1644 was held by the Duke of Norfolk, but he argued that there was no
reason why these earldoms, each with the same designation, could not exist at the same time.
Mowbray's claim rested upon the validity of the surrender of the earldom to the King in 1302 and
its subsequent re-creation in 1312, but the Law Lords held that such surrender was invalid in law,
since it was settled law [at the time of this judgment] that a peer could not surrender, disown
or extinguish his honour.
The inability to disown a peerage was abolished under the Peerage Act 1963, under which
peerages can now be disclaimed for life.
The following lengthy report on the outcome of this case appeared in the London "Daily
Telegraph" of 28 November 1906:-
'Yesterday the House of Lords Committee for Privileges gave their decision in regard to the
petition of Lord Mowbray that the abeyance of the Earldom of Norfolk, granted to Thomas de
Brotherton in 1312, should be determined in his favour as eldest co-heir. The claimant did not
dispute that to the Earldom of Norfolk, created in 1644, the present Duke of Norfolk as heir male
appeared to be undoubtedly entitled, but the creation of 1312 and the creation of 1644, though
each carrying the same designation, were two distinct earldoms with different remainders, and
heritable by different individuals. That two people, it was contended, could enjoy different
peerages, with the same designation and at the same time, was not a new doctrine. The main
contention of the Duke of Norfolk in opposition to the claim of Lord Mowbray was that the King,
having granted the title of Earl of Norfolk to Sir Thomas Howard by patent of June 6, 1644, the
title of Earl of Norfolk formerly granted to Thomas de Brotherton was not at the disposal of the
Crown to grant to Lord Mowbray. The petition of Lord Mowbray could only be successful if it
were held that at the date of the patent in 1644, the earldom of Norfolk was not wholly in the
disposal of the King, but was in abeyance.
'Claimant was represented by Sir R. Finlay, K.C. [later Viscount Finlay], Mr [George Dames]
Burtchaell [1853-1921], and Mr. A[rthur] C[harles] Fox-Davies [1871-1928]; and the Duke of
Norfolk by Mr. Warmington K.C. [later Sir Cornelius Warmington, 1st baronet], Lord [Robert]
Cecil K.C. [later Viscount Cecil of Chelwood] and Mr. H. Stuart Moore. The Attorney-General
[Sir John Walton], Mr. G[eorge] R[anken] Askwith [later Baron Askwith], and Mr. Geoffrey Ellis
appeared for the Crown.
'The Earl of Onslow presided over yesterday's meeting of the committee, the other members
present being the Earl of Halsbury, Viscount Knutsford, Lords Dunboyne, Ashbourne, James of
Hereford, Davey, and Robertson.
'The Earl of Halsbury, in moving that the committee report to the House that the claimant had
not established his claim to the dignity in question, said: In this case the claimant seeks to
establish his right to the earldom of Norfolk, an earldom created in the person of Hugh Le Bygod
in 1135. It may be assumed that he has satisfactorily established his pedigree, but in the course
of it he is compelled to admit that he is not heir to the earldom so created, but has to rely on
the surrender of the earldom to the King and a grant of the earldom so surrendered to Thomas
de Brotherton in 1312 [The 5th Earl of this creation surrendered his earldom to the King in 1302
and received it back entailed "to the heirs of his body." This had the effect of disinheriting his
brother and meant that the earldom thus became extinct on the death of the 5th Earl in 1306]
Now the claimant has undoubtedly proved his descent from Thomas de Brotherton, but the fatal
blot in his case is that the surrender upon which he relies is invalid in law. It is settled law that
no peer can disown or extinguish his honour, but that it descends unto his descendants neither
by surrender, grant, fine, or any other conveyance. This has repeatedly held to be the law for
some centuries, and finally, in the report on the dignity of a peerage it is stated that such must
now be held to be the law. This is binding on your lordships. Something was suggested by the
learned counsel as to what law or what understanding of the law your lordships ought to apply.
I know of no such jurisdiction as applicable to the law of England. Our duty is to be the best of
our ability to ascertain what the law is, and, having ascertained it, to give effect to it; to alter
it or even modify it is the function of the Legislature, and not of your Lordships' House. No
stronger illustration of this principle can be given than when, so lately as 1818, the Court of
King's Bench, with Lord Ellenborough presiding, felt itself compelled to allow a claim to wager of
battle in an appeal of murder, and but for the intervention of an Act of Parliament, 59 George
III, some of his Majesty's judges might have had to preside over a single combat between the
appellant and his antagonist. [For further information, see the Wikipedia article "Ashford v
Thornton"]. I think Sir R. Finlay was correct in saying that the King's writ, followed by a sitting in
Parliament, of itself created a peerage, because, assuming it did, it would not of itself create an
earldom. An earldom was an office as well as a dignity, and the office was full of the heir of the
Bygods, and the rank of an earl could not be conferred merely by the Sovereign addressing the
peer by that title even if it had been possible to create two earldoms for the same county. The
somewhat archaic form which up to the present day accompanies the creation of an earldom
shows the manner in which such a dignity can be created.
'Lord Ashbourne quoted the charter of Edward II in 1312 to show that the earldom then granted
was the earldom that had been held by Roger de Bygod, and had been surrendered by him to
King Edward I in 1302. That the charter conferred a new and independent earldom could not, he
thought, be maintained. The fact that Thomas de Brotherton was summoned to Parliament under
the 1312 grant could not be considered as conferring any right to the earldom apart from the
charter. Proceeding, Lord Ashbourne said: Assuming the pedigree of the claimant to be estab-
lished (and it is not disputed) and that there is no constitutional or legal difficulty in applying the
practice of calling out of abeyance to earldoms as well as to baronies, has Lord Mowbray made
out his claim to the Earldom of Norfolk granted to Thomas de Brotherton in 1312? That earldom
was the earldom of Roger de Bygod, as held by him at the date of its surrender to King Edward I
in 1302. If that surrender was legal according to peerage law, then the earldom of Roger de
Bygod was vested in the Crown, and could not be re-granted in any subsequent year to any
other subject. But was it legally competent for an earl or any other peer to surrender or destroy
his earldom or peerage? Can any peer, by his mere personal act, oust and kill the rights of those
entitled in remainder - it might be his children, brothers, or near kinsmen? Roger de Bygod had a
brother living in 1302, and other kinsmen are stated to have been subsequently in existence.
Supposing a claimant should now appear, proving a clear descent from a Bygod entitled to the
old earldom, what answer could either of the parties here make in opposition? The question really
is narrowed to this, had Roger de Bygod the legal right to make a valid surrender of the Earldom
of Norfolk in 1302? The law on the subject does not now appear open to any doubt, and when-
ever the question came before your lordships' House the opinions expressed gave no sanction to
any contrary contention. In 1612 Mr. Justice Doddridge, in the Earl of Oxford's case, advised the
House - "If a man be created an earl to him and his heirs all men do know that though he had a
fee simple yet he cannot alien or give away this inheritance because it is a personal dignity
annexed to the posterity and fixed in the blood." In the Grey de Ruthin case, in the reign of
Charles II, a resolution of this House put the proposition with absolute clearness: "That peer of
this realm can drown or extinguish his honour but that it descends unto his descendants, neither
by surrender, grant, fine, nor any other conveyance to the King." In 1678 the question presented
itself for decision in the Purbeck case, and the resolution of the House was distinct and unqual-
ified. "No fine now levied or at any time hereafter to be levied to the King can bar such title of
honour or the right of any person claiming such title of honour or the right of any claiming such
title under him that levied or shall levy such fine." The House proceeded as if they were declaring
clear law, and not as if they were laying down any novel proposition. It is not denied that the
law is now clear, but it is urged that it is hard and unreasonable to apply it to such an early date
as 1312, that it was not then known or declared. On the subject or hardness and unreasonable-
ness, it is not unworthy of note that this is not a case of disturbing or upsetting a long
possession. On the contrary, it is a claim to call a title out of abeyance, after over four centuries.
If the law is clear, how can we avoid applying it? The law did not begin in 1612, or 1640, or 1678.
It was suggested that although no date could be arbitrarily fixed for its starting-point, may be it
would be reasonable to say that it should not be applied until our Parliamentary system was
established. But even if that canon was laid down, I do not think it would help Lord Mowbray, for
it could not be urged that the condition suggested was not satisfied before 1302, the date of the
surrender. What has been called "the model Parliament" met in 1295, and it is manifest that from
that date, at all events, our Parliamentary system must be regarded as established. In my
opinion, the claimant has failed to make out his case.
'Lord Davey said the real question was whether the claimant had made out the title of his
ancestor to the earldom of Norfolk. There could not be any doubt as to the construction of the
Charter of Edward II of 1312. The terms of the charter were plain and unambiguous. It was
Bygod's earldom which it was purported had been surrendered into the King's hands, and which
the King purported to grant to Thomas de Brotherton. It was not and did not operate as a new
creation - indeed, it might be doubted whether, having regard to the original conception that an
earldom was an office, the lawyers of that day would have admitted the possibility of there being
two earls of the same county. A man could not alienate the title by surrender, grant, or
otherwise, and the reason was that it was a personal thing which descended to his posterity; in
other words he could not alter or affect the status of his descendants or other persons within
the line of succession. But it had been said that the grant of 1312 ought to be treated as valid,
because the ideas of the fourteenth century are not those which now prevail. That contention
appeared to be based on a fallacy, that House was bound by its own declarations of the law,
and exercising its judicial functions had no power to alter the law. Another argument was that
even if the surrender was invalid, yet the grant to Thomas de Brotherton and the summoning
of him to Parliament conferred the dignity of an earldom upon him. The historical right of a peer
was to specially summoned by name to Parliament, but it had never been held that the summon-
ing to Parliament conferred the title to any particular rank in the peerage. It would no doubt
confer a peerage on Sir Thomas de Brotherton, but would not confer an earldom. For those
reasons he concurred in the resolution that the Committee should report that the claimant had
not established his case.
'The motion to report to the House that the petitioner had failed to make good his claim was then
put and agreed to without dissent.'
Charles Howard, 10th Duke of Norfolk
In 1785, there was published anonymously a book with the title "The Heraldry of Nature; or,
Instructions for the King of Arms, comprising the arms, supporters, crests and mottos, in Latin,
and with a translation, of the E-g---h peers."
In the preface, the author says he has 'rejected the common and patented bearings already
painted on the carriages of our nobility, and instituted what he judges a wiser delineation of
the honours they deserve.' In other words, the anonymous author produced a book
which contains illustrations of the coats of arms of the then-current peerage, including the
Lords Spiritual, based on his perception of the coats of arms that each peer deserved.
Included in the book was Charles Howard, 10th Duke of Norfolk, who had a reputation for
being a 'six bottle a day' man who would often drink himself insensible at any public banquet
he attended.
The book suggests that his arms should be three quart bottles, a broken flagon and a naked
arm holding a corkscrew, with the motto of 'Quo me Bacche rapis' (Bacchus, where are you
running with me?). The quote is from Horace (Book III, Ode XXV).
Apparently the Duke's drinking binges were not all bad news for his servants, since, once he
was unconscious, they could at least give him a wash - something that the Duke was reputed
to never do himself. 'His repugnance to soap and water was equal to his love of wine.'
Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1st and only Viscount Northcliffe, and his wife,
Mary Elizabeth Milner (c 1868 - 30 July 1963)
Lord Northcliffe married Mary Elizabeth Milner on 11 April 1888. After he died on 14 August 1922
his widow remarried, less than eight months later, Sir Robert Arundell Hudson (1864-1927). This
wedding does not appear to have been expected, since various reports on the wedding contain
words such as "considerable surprise" and "bombshell."
The following [rather turgid in my view] report appeared in the Adelaide 'Mail' on 7 July 1923.
Given its spelling of certain words and the reference to dollars rather than pounds, it was
probably reprinted from an American newspaper.
'If one-tenth of one per cent of the gossip with which all England is buzzing is to be believed -
and undoubtedly much more than that is worthy of being credited - it was a most unusual drama
that was enacted a few months ago in the room where Lord Northcliffe, the millionaire newspaper
and magazine publisher, lay dying.
'Other husbands have forgiven erring wives on their deathbeds. Still others have steadfastly
refused to forgive and have gone to their graves busily plotting ways of depriving their wives of
the other love that stood waiting on death's word.
'But probably never before did husband behave as Lord Northcliffe did. He treated his wife and
the rival who is believed to have long since won her heart with a tender love and charity that
seem almost beyond the power of any human heart.
'In his last hours of life he not only forgave whatever there may have been to forgive between
his wife and the other man, but gave liberally of his wealth to safeguard their happiness and
made them solemnly promise that they would be married as soon as possible after he was gone.
'This promise, made at Lord Northcliffe's bedside when the wings of the angel of death were
already brushing his pale-thinned face, was redeemed the other day by the marriage of Lady
Northcliffe to Sir Robert Hudson.
'That wedding set loose the tongues of gossips and brought to light many facts concerning
the conditions in the Northcliffe family that were carefully hidden from view as long as the great
publisher lived. And from this mass of facts and rumors the public can now get what is probably
a fairly truthful idea of the amazing treatment Lord Northcliffe gave the love triangle in which he
formed what is usually the unhappy and bitterly revengeful corner.
'Sir Robert, a widower since 1895, and Lady Northcliffe are said to have been in love since 1908.
He is a wealthy man, the former chief agent of the Liberal Party, and was knighted for his
services during the war in the British Red Cross. [He was first knighted in 1906, and promoted to
a higher order of knighthood in 1918].
'Lord Northcliffe is believed to have been fully aware of the new romance that had claimed his
wife's heart since shortly after it began. But he behaved not at all as most husbands do under
such circumstances.
'On the contrary, he repeatedly offered to permit himself to be divorced so Lady Northcliffe could
marry Sir Robert, but his wife refused because of her social ambitions and fear of scandal.
'So Lord Northcliffe, with apparently not the slightest bitterness in his heart, did the next best
thing. He effaced himself from her situation as far as he could and did everything to keep the
other two corners of the triangle constantly together.
'It had long been a matter of comment that Sir Robert was practically a permanent member of
the Northcliffe family and that wherever Lord and Lady Northcliffe went he was sure to go along,
'When the publisher was stricken with his last illness and felt sure his days were numbered, the
future happiness of his wife and the other man seems to have been a matter of graver concern
to him than his own serious condition or the disposition of his vast estate.
'His wife was already, through his generosity, a wealthy woman, but by outright gifts he
increased her fortune by several million dollars. He was determined Sir Robert and she should
never lack for comfort or luxuries if he could help it.
'While handing out these millions he drew a will providing that if his wife married again she should
be deprived of a large share of the estate. But this is believed to have been only a ruse to
conceal the true facts of the matter. With all his passion for publicity Lord Northcliffe seems to
have shrunk from bringing his own wrecked love life into the world's view.
'When he had arranged his wife's financial future to his satisfaction he apparently became
haunted by the fear that she and Sir Robert would, out of respect for his memory, postpone
their marriage for an unduly long time, He did not want them to do this. He wished them to taste
at once the happiness to which his death opened the way.
'One day, when his death seemed liable to occur at any minute, he astonished the nurse by
insisting that he be propped up in bed and that his wife and Sir Robert be summoned to the room.
'When they had come Lord Northcliffe commanded them to take each other's hands. As they
obeyed he pointed a tremulous hand at Sir Robert and said, in tones surprisingly clear for a
dying man:- "Promise me, on your word of honor, that you'll marry her - at once - as soon as I
am gone." Sir Robert is said to have given his promise, and then Lord Northcliffe demanded and
received a similar promise from his sobbing wife. As he heard her pledge a little smile of
satisfaction lit up his death-struck face and he sank back on the pillows exhausted. Not many
hours later he was dead.'
The reader may make of this story whatever he or she will, but it should be pointed out that
Lady Northcliffe did indeed lose a large portion of her late husband's estate when she remarried,
and therefore the mention in the above report of a "ruse to conceal the true facts of the matter"
seems to be incorrect.
Patrick Charles Carnegy, 15th Earl of Northesk
James Carnegie, 1st Lord Lour, was created Earl of Ethie and Lord Lour and Eglismauldie by
patent, dated 1 November 1647. The remainder contained in the patent was to "heirs male of his
body." Shortly before his death he procured a patent (dated 25 October 1666) changing the
titles to those of Earl of Northesk and Lord Rosehill and Eglismauldie, which also altered the
remainder to "heirs male and of entail in his estate." As a result, unlike a number of other Scottish
peerages, these dignities could not descend through a female line.
When the 14th Earl died in 2010, he was succeeded by a distant relation, his eighth cousin once
removed, who was descended from the 2nd Earl. The following article appeared in the London
"Telegraph" on 16 September 2013, under the heading "Daughters of aristocratic family loses title
to distant male heir":-
'One of Britain's oldest aristocratic families has lost a Downton Abbey style battle to prevent a
cherished title passing to a distant male heir.
'Lady Sarah Carnegie, 30, who was the oldest surviving child of the 14th Earl of Northesk, had
sought to inherit the family title when her father died in 2010. But in line with the ancient laws
of primogeniture governing Scottish titles, the Earldom has now passed to an eighth cousin,
72-year [old] Patrick Carnegy, who has no children himself.
'The fate of the ancient title, which was created in 1662 [sic], has been tinged with tragedy in
recent years. The previous holder, David Carnegie, was the second son of the 13th Earl of
Northesk, but became the heir apparent when his elder brother tragically drowned in infancy. He
inherited the title in 1994 upon the death of his father Richard and having a son as well as three
daughters, it looked like the succession was guaranteed for at least the next generation.
'But in 2001, his son, Alexander, committed suicide following a long battle with mental health
problems. When David died from cancer aged just 55, the title passed to music scholar and
journalist Patrick, who lives in Cambridgeshire with his wife, the soprano, Jull Gomez. But a
pressure group, which is campaigning for gender equality within the laws of succession, has
claimed this case highlights why the issue must be urgently addressed.
'The Countess of Clancarty, who is among those campaigning for a change in the way titles pass
to male heirs said: "The Northesk case shows quite clearly how ridiculous, unfair and iniquitous
the current system of inheritance is."
'Lady Sarah Carnegie, who as the eldest Northesk child ought to have inherited the title, now
lives in the United States, where she works as a paramedic. But with the support of her mother
and two sisters, she launched a legal bid to challenge the loss of the Earldom from the direct
'Her representatives contacted the Crown Office to inquire whether there was any way the title
could pass down the female line. Because it was a Scottish title however the matter passed to
the Scottish Lord Lyon, who after months of wrangling and careful examination of ancient
documents eventually ruled in favour of the title passing to Patrick Carnegy, who was a direct
descendant of the third son of the 2nd Earl of Northesk, who lived between 1643 and 1688.
'The 15th Earl insisted last night that he had never sought the title or indeed had expected to
inherit. He told the Daily Telegraph: "Since 2001 and the tragic death of the 14th Earl's son and
heir, I was recognised in Debrett etc as the heir presumptive. As the 14th Earl was some 14
years younger than myself I had never expected to inherit.
"When the Earl died at the age of 55 in 2010 I was told by the Court of the Lord Lyon what I had
to do to substantiate my claim to the title, one that has always passed through the male line.
There was no prima facie case why the Earl's eldest daughter should inherit, nor, I believe, did
their father ever think so." He added: "This ruling was graciously accepted on behalf of the late
Earl's eldest daughter. My wife, the singer Jill Gomez, and myself remain on the best of terms
with the sisters of the late Earl who live not far from our own house near Cambridge."
'He went on: "I fully understand the grievance of the many women who, under existing legislation,
cannot inherit their family titles and property. But all peerages have been created by monarchs,
and the destinations of the titles are set out, often very differently and in some cases permitting
women to inherit, in the Letters Patent creating them. Would it not be virtually impossible to
frame legislation to change those destinations without, in effect, abolishing the monarchy itself?"
'It is understood the family initially considered challenging the decision in the House of Lords, but
decided against taking it further because of the pain caused by the various tragedies connected
with the title. Lady Fisher, the sister of the 14th Earl said: "I think we took the collective view
that there were so many sadnesses attached to it and it had no benefits." The title no longer
has an estate attached to it and there is no financial legacy passed down, but the holder can
apply to be one of the 92 hereditary peers allowed to take a seat in the House of Lords.'
The Northumberland Peerage Claim of 1672-1689
The following account of the claim is taken from an anonymously written book titled
"Celebrated Claimants Ancient and Modern" published by Chatto and Windus, London, 1873.
'In 1670 Jocelyn Percy, the eleventh Earl of Northumberland, died without male issue. Up to his
time, throughout the six hundred years, the noble family of Percy had never been without a
male representative, and the successive earls had almost invariably been soldiers, and had
added to the lustre of their descent by their own valiant deeds. But when the Earl Jocelyn
died, in 1670, he left behind him a solitary daughter--whose life was in itself eventful enough,
and who became the wife of Charles Somerset, the proud Duke of Somerset--but who could
wear the title, although she inherited much of the wealth of the Percys. [This daughter
married, as her second husband, Thomas Thynne, who was assassinated in Pall Mall in 1682 -
for more information, see his entry under "Wiltshire" in the House of Commons pages.]
'Jocelyn Percy was, however, scarcely cold in his grave when a claimant appeared, who
sought the family honours and the entailed lands which their possession implied. This was
James Percy, a poor Dublin trunkmaker, who came over to England and at once assumed the
title. His pretensions aroused the ire of the dowager-countess, the mother of Earl Jocelyn,
who, on the 18th of February 1672, presented a petition to the House of Lords on behalf of
herself and Lady Elizabeth Percy, her grand-daughter, setting forth that "one who called
himself James Percy (by profession a trunkmaker in Dublin) assumes to himself the titles of
Earl of Northumberland and Lord Percy, to the dishonour of that family." This petition was
referred, in the usual course, to the Committee for Privileges. This was immediately followed
by a petition from the claimant, which was read, considered, and dismissed. However, both
parties appeared before the House of Lords on the 28th of November, James Percy claiming
the honours, and the countess declaring him an imposter. Percy craved an extension of time;
but, as he was unable to show any probability that he would ultimately succeed, his demand
was refused, and his petition was dismissed--Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesea [i.e. Anglesey]
alone protesting against the decision.
Percy, however, displaying the same valour and obstinacy in the courts which his ancestors
had so often shown on the battle-fields, was not daunted, although he was discomfited. He
appealed to the common-law tribunals, and brought actions for scandal and ejectment against
various parties, and no fewer than five of these suits were tried between 1674 and 1681. The
first adversary whom he challenged was James Clark, whom he sued for scandal, and in whose
case he was content to accept a non-suit; alleging, however, that this untoward result was
not so much brought about by the weakness of his cause as by the faithlessness of his
attorney. In a printed document which he published with reference to the trial, he distinctly
states that the Lord Chief-Justice, Sir Matthew Hale, was so much dissatisfied with the
decision, that in the open court he plainly asserted "that the claimant had proved himself a
true Percy, by father, mother, grandfather, and grandmother, and of the blood and family of
the Percys of Northumberland; and that he did verily believe that the claimant was cousin and
next heir-male to Jocelyn, late Earl of Northumberland, only he was afraid he had taken the
descent too high." It is further reported that Sir Matthew, on entering his carriage, remarked
to Lord Shaftesbury, who was standing by, "I verily believe he hath as much right to the
earldom of Northumberland as I have to this coach and horses, which I have bought and paid
'His next action was against a gentleman named Wright, who had taken upon himself to
pronounce him illegitimate, and in this instance he was more successful. The case was heard
before Sir Richard Rainsford, Sir Matthew Hale's successor, and resulted in a verdict for the
plaintiff, with 300 damages. Flushed by this victory, he took proceedings against Edward
Craister, the sheriff of Northumberland, against whom he filed a bill for the recovery of the
sum of 20-a-year, granted by the patent of creation out of the revenues of the county.
Before this, however, in 1680, he had again petitioned the House of Lords, and his petition
was again rejected--Lord Annesley [i.e. Anglesey], as before, protesting against the rejection.
The litigation with Craister in the Court of Exchequer being very protracted, the Duchess of
Somerset (who was the daughter and heiress of Earl Jocelyn) brought the matter once more
before the Lords in 1685, and her petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges. In
reply to her petition Percy presented one of complaint, which was also sent to the Committee.
No decision, however, seems to have been arrived at, and the reign of King James came to a
close without further action. In the first year of the reign of William and Mary (1689), Percy
returned to the charge with a fresh petition and a fresh demand for recognition and justice.
These documents are still extant, and some of them are very entertaining. In one he candidly
admits that he has been, up to the time when he writes, in error as to his pedigree, and,
abandoning his old position, takes up fresh ground. In another, "The claimant desireth your
lordships to consider the justice and equity of his cause, hoping your lordships will take such
care therein that your own descendants may not be put to the like trouble for the future in
maintaining their and your petitioner's undoubted right;" and lest the argumentum ad homines
[argument against the man] should fail, he asks, "Whether or no three streams issuing from
one fountain, why the third stream (though little, the first two great streams being spent) may
not justly claim the right of the original fountain?" In addition, he appends a sort of solemn
declaration, in which he represents himself as trusting in God, and waiting patiently upon the
king's sacred Majesty for his royal writ of summons to call him to appear and take his place
and seat according to his birthright and title, "for true men ought not to be blamed for
standing up for justice, property, and right, which is the chief diadem in the Crown, and the
laurel of the kingdom." That summons never was destined to be issued. When the Committee
for Privileges gave in their report, it declared Percy's conduct to be insolent in persisting to
designate himself Earl of Northumberland after the previous decisions of the House; and the
Lords ordered that counsel should be heard at the bar of the House on the part of the Duke
of Somerset against the said James Percy.
'This was accordingly done; and the Lords not only finally came to the decision that the
pretensions of the said James Percy to the earldom of Northumberland are groundless, false,
and scandalous," and ordered that his petition be dismissed, but added to their judgment this
sentence, "That the said James Percy shall be brought before the four Courts in Westminster
Hall, wearing a paper upon his breast on which these words shall be written: 'THE FALSE AND
carried into execution, and from that time forward the unfortunate trunkmaker disappears from
the public view. He does not seem to have reverted to his old trade; or, at least, if he did so,
he made it profitable, for we find his son, Sir Anthony Percy, figuring as Lord Mayor of Dublin
in 1699. There can be no doubt that, although he was treated with undue harshness, his
claims had no real foundation. At first he alleged that his grandfather, Henry Percy, was a son
of Sir Richard Percy, a younger brother of Henry, ninth Earl of Northumberland--an allegation
which would have made Sir Richard a grandfather at thirteen years of age. It was further
proved that Sir Richard, so far from having any claim to such unusual honours, died without
issue. In his second story he traced his descent to Sir Ingelram Percy, stating that his
grandfather Henry was the eldest of the four children of Sir Ingelram, and that these children
were sent from the north in hampers to Dame Vaux of Harrowden, in Northamptonshire. He
advanced no proof, however, of the correctness of this story, while the other side showed
conclusively that Sir Ingelram had never been married, and at his death had only left an
illegitimate daughter. At any rate, whether James Percy was honest or dishonest, "the game
was worth the candle"--the Percy honours and estates were worth trying for.'
The special remainders to the Barony of Warkworth and Earldom of Northumberland
created in 1749
From the "London Gazette" of 23 September 1749 (issue 8887, page 2):-
'The King has been pleased to grant the Dignities of a Baron and Earl of the Kingdom of Great
Britain, unto his Grace Algernon Duke of Somerset, by the Name, Stile, and Title of Baron
Warkworth, of Warkworth Castle in the County of Northumberland, and Earl of Northumberland,
to hold the same to him, and his Heirs Male of his Body; and, in Default of such Issue, to Sir
Hugh Smithson, of Stanwick in the County of York, Baronet (Son in Law to the said Duke of
Somerset) and the Heirs Male of his Body by the Lady Elizabeth Smithson his present Wife.
(Daughter of the said Duke of Somerset) and in Default of such Issue, the Dignities of Baroness
Warkworth, of Warkworth Castle, and Countess of Northumberland, to the said Lady Elizabeth
Smithson; and the Dignities of Baron Warkworth, and Earl of Northumberland to her Heirs Male.'
The special remainder to the Earldom of Nugent created in 1776
From the "London Gazette" of 29 June 1776 (issue 11679, page 1):-
'The King has been pleased to order Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the
Kingdom of Ireland containing His Majesty's Grant of ...... the Dignity of an Earl of the said
Kingdom of Ireland unto......Robert Lord Viscount Clare of the said Kingdom, by the Name, Stile,
and Title of Earl Nugent, with Remainder to George Nugent Grenville, Esq., of Wotton under
Baronwood in the County of Buckingham.'
The special remainder to the Barony of Nugent created in 1800
From the "London Gazette" of 6 January 1801 (issue 15326, pages 39 and 40):-
'His Majesty has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of this Kingdom to the several
Gentlemen hereafter mentioned, and the Heirs Male of their respective Bodies lawfully begotten
[including] to the Most Noble Mary Elizabeth, Marchioness of Buckingham, Wife of the Most Noble
George Grenville Nugent Temple, Marquis of Buckingham, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the
Garter, the Dignity of Baroness Nugent, of Carlan's Town, in the County of Westmeath; and to
George Nugent Grenville (commonly called Lord George Nugent Grenville,) Second son of the said
Marchioness of Buckingham, and her Heirs Male of his Body, the Dignity of Baron Nugent, of
Carlan's Town aforesaid.'
Copyright 2020