Last updated 07/06/2022
     Date Rank Order Name Born Died  Age
26 May 2011 E 1 HRH Prince William of Wales (William Arthur
Philip Louis) 21 Jun 1982
Created Baron Carrickfergus,Earl of Strathearn
and Duke of Cambridge 26 May 2011
See "Cambridge"
22 Jan 1836 B 1 Mary Elizabeth Campbell 29 Apr 1796 25 Mar 1860 63
Created Baroness Stratheden
22 Jan 1836
For details of the special remainder included in the
creation of this peerage,see the note at the 
foot of this page
25 Mar 1860 2 William Frederick Campbell 15 Oct 1824 21 Jan 1893 68
MP for Cambridge 1847-1852 and Harwich
1859-1860. He succeeded to the barony of
Campbell of St.Andrews (qv) in 1861
21 Jan 1893 3 Hallyburton George Campbell  (also 3rd Baron 18 Oct 1829 26 Dec 1918 89
26 Dec 1918 4 Alaistair Campbell  (also 4th Baron Campbell) 21 Nov 1899 12 Dec 1981 82
12 Dec 1981 5 Gavin Campbell  (also 5th Baron Campbell) 28 Aug 1901 29 Oct 1987 86
29 Oct 1987 6 Donald Campbell  (also 6th Baron Campbell) 4 Apr 1934 23 Oct 2011 77
23 Oct 2011 7 David Anthony Campbell  (also 7th Baron Campbell) 13 Feb 1963
c 1115 E[S] 1 Malise c 1160
He was witness to the Charter of
Scone in 1115 as Earl of Stratherne
c 1160 2 Ferquhard 1171
1171 3 Gilbert c 1150 1223
1223 4 Robert c 1244
c 1244 5 Malise 1271
1271 6 Malise c 1257 c 1313
c 1313 7 Malise by 1329
by 1329 8 Malise after 1332
to     He was attainted and the peerage forfeited
9 Feb 1344 E[S] 1 Maurice Moray 17 Oct 1346
to     Created Earl of Stratherne 9 Feb 1344
17 Oct 1346 Peerage extinct on his death
Nov 1357 E[S] 1 Robert Stewart  2 Mar 1316 13 Apr 1390 74
to     Created Earl of Stratherne Nov 1357
22 Feb 1371 He succeeded to the throne as Robert II of
Scotland in 1371 when the peerage merged
with the Crown
26 Mar 1371 E[S] 1 David Stewart after 1355 Mar 1390
Created Earl of Stratherne 26 Mar 1371
Mar 1390 2 Eupheme Graham c 1415
c 1415 3 Malise Graham c 1410 after 1427
to     He was deprived on the peerage before 1427
by 1427
22 Jul 1427 E[S] 1 Walter Stewart 26 Mar 1437
to     Created Earl of Stratherne 22 Jul 1427
26 Mar 1437 He was attainted and the peerage forfeited
10 Jul 1606 E[S] 1 Patrick Lyon,9th Lord Glamis 1575 1 Sep 1616 41
Created Lord Lyon and Glamis and 
Earl of Kinghorne 10 Jul 1606
1 Sep 1616 2 John Lyon 13 Aug 1596 12 May 1647 50
12 May 1647 3 Patrick Lyon 29 May 1643 15 May 1695 51
On 1 July 1677 he received a new charter as
Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne,Viscount Lyon,
Lord Glamis, Tannadyce,Sidlaw and Stradichtie
with the original precedence
15 May 1695 4 John Lyon 8 May 1663 10 May 1712 49
10 May 1712 5 John Lyon 27 Apr 1690 13 Nov 1715 25
13 Nov 1715 6 Charles Lyon 12 Jul 1699 11 May 1728 28
For further information on the death of this peer,
and the subsequent history of his widow, see the
notes at the foot of this page
11 May 1728 7 James Lyon 24 Dec 1702 4 Jan 1735 32
4 Jan 1735 8 Thomas Lyon 6 Jul 1704 18 Jan 1753 48
MP for Forfar 1734-1735
18 Jan 1753 9 John Lyon (later Bowes from 1767) 17 Jul 1737 7 Mar 1776 38
For further information on this peer's wife, see
the note at the foot of this page.
7 Mar 1776 10 John Bowes 14 Apr 1769 3 Jul 1820 51
Created Baron Bowes of Streatlam
Castle and Lunedale 7 Aug 1815 
3 Jul 1820 11 Thomas Lyon-Bowes 3 May 1773 27 Aug 1846 73
For further information on this peer's alleged eldest
grandson, see the note at the foot of this page.
27 Aug 1846 12 Thomas George Lyon-Bowes 28 Sep 1822 13 Sep 1865 42
13 Sep 1865 13 Claud Bowes-Lyon 21 Jul 1824 16 Feb 1904 79
Created Baron Bowes of Streatlam
Castle and Lunedale 1 Jul 1887
Lord Lieutenant Angus (Forfar) 1874-1904
16 Feb 1904 14 Claude George Bowes-Lyon 14 Mar 1855 7 Nov 1944 89
1 Jun 1937 E 1 Created Earl of Strathmore and 
Kinghorne 1 Jun 1937
Lord Lieutenant Angus (Forfar) 1904-1936. 
KT 1928  KG 1937
7 Nov 1944 15 Patrick Bowes-Lyon 22 Sep 1884 25 May 1949 64
25 May 1949 16 Timothy Bowes-Lyon 18 Mar 1918 13 Sep 1972 54
13 Sep 1972 17 Fergus Michael Claude Bowes Lyon 31 Dec 1928 18 Aug 1987 58
18 Aug 1987 18 Michael Fergus Bowes Lyon 7 Jun 1957 27 Feb 2016 58
27 Feb 2016 19 Simon Patrick Bowes-Lyon 18 Jun 1986
31 Jul 1866 B 1 Sir Hugh Henry Rose 6 Apr 1801 16 Oct 1885 84
to     Created Baron Strathnairn 31 Jul 1866
16 Oct 1885 Field Marshal 1877. PC [I] 1865
Peerage extinct on his death
Although not a peerage,the title of Lord 
Strathnaver has been used as a courtesy title
since the late 16th century by the Earls
of Sutherland
14 Aug 1858 B 1 John Charles Ogilvie Grant,7th Earl of
Seafield 4 Sep 1815 18 Feb 1881 65
Created Baron Strathspey 14 Aug 1858
18 Feb 1881 2 Ian Charles Ogilvie Grant,8th Earl of
to     Seafield 7 Oct 1851 31 Mar 1884 32
31 Mar 1884 Peerage extinct on his death
17 Jun 1884 B 1 James Ogilvy Grant,9th Earl of Seafield 27 Dec 1817 5 Jun 1888 70
Created Baron Strathspey 17 Jun 1884
5 Jun 1888 2 Francis William Ogilvy Grant,10th Earl of
Seafield 9 Mar 1847 3 Dec 1888 41
3 Dec 1888 3 James Ogilvy Grant,11th Earl of Seafield 18 Apr 1876 12 Nov 1915 39
12 Nov 1915 4 Trevor Grant 2 Mar 1879 11 Nov 1948 69
For further information, see the note at the foot
of this page
11 Nov 1948 5 Donald Patrick Trevor Grant 18 Mar 1912 27 Jan 1992 79
27 Jan 1992 6 James Patrick Trevor Grant 9 Sep 1943
30 Jun 1703 E [S] 1 John Murray,2nd Marquess of Atholl 24 Feb 1660 14 Nov 1724 64
Created Lord Murray,Viscount
Glenalmond and Earl of Tullibardine
for life 27 Jul 1696 and Lord Murray,
Balvenie and Gask,Viscount of
Balwhidder,Glenalmond and Glenlyon,
Earl of Strathtay and Strathardle,
Marquess of Tullibardine and Duke of
Atholl 30 Jun 1703
See "Atholl"
9 Jul 1979 B[L] 1 George Russell Strauss 18 Jul 1901 5 Jun 1993 91
to     Created Baron Strauss for life 9 Jul 1979
5 Jun 1993 MP for Lambeth North 1929-1931 and
1934-1950 and Vauxhall 1950-1979. 
Minister of Supply 1947-1951.  PC 1947
Peerage extinct on his death
19 Jan 1928 B 1 Sir Gerald Strickland 24 May 1861 22 Aug 1940 79
to     Created Baron Strickland 19 Jan 1928
22 Aug 1940 Governor of Leeward Islands 1902-1904,
Tasmania 1904-1909, Western Australia
1909-1913 and New South Wales 1913-1917.
MP for Lancaster 1924-1928. Prime Minister
of Malta 1927-1932.
Peerage extinct on his death
For further information on this peer, see
the note at the foot of this page
25 Feb 1342 B 1 Sir John de Strivelyn 15 Aug 1378
to     Summoned to Parliament as Lord
15 Aug 1378 Strivelyn 25 Feb 1342
Peerage extinct on his death
1 Oct 2015 B[L] 1 Philippa Claire Stroud 2 Apr 1965
Created Baroness Stroud for life 1 Oct 2015
10 May 1839 B 1 Henry Villiers-Stuart 8 Jun 1803 23 Jan 1874 70
to     Created Baron Stuart de Decies
23 Jan 1874 10 May 1839
MP for Waterford 1826-1830 and Banbury
1830-1831. Lord Lieutenant Waterford 1831-
1874. PC [I] 1837
Peerage extinct on his death
22 Jan 1828 B 1 Sir Charles Stuart 2 Jan 1779 6 Nov 1845 66
to     Created Baron Stuart de Rothesay
6 Nov 1845 22 Jan 1828
Peerage extinct on his death
4 Jun 1796 B 1 Francis Stuart,9th Earl of Moray 11 Jan 1737 28 Aug 1810 73
Created Baron Stuart of Castle Stuart
4 Jun 1796
See "Moray"
7 Sep 2020 B[L] 1 Gisela Stuart 26 Nov 1955
Created Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston for life 7 Sep 2020
20 Nov 1959 V 1 James Gray Stuart 9 Feb 1897 20 Feb 1971 74
Created Viscount Stuart of Findhorn
20 Nov 1959
MP for Moray and Nairn 1923-1959. 
Secretary of State for Scotland 1951-1957
PC 1939  CH 1957
20 Feb 1971 2 David Randolph Moray Stuart 20 Jun 1924 24 Nov 1999 75
24 Nov 1999 3 James Dominic Stuart 25 Mar 1948
7 Jun 1619 B 1 Esme Stuart 1579 30 Jul 1624 45
Created Baron Stuart of Leighton
Bromswold and Earl of March 
7 Jun 1619
See "Lennox" - extinct 1672
10 Dec 1645 B 1 Charles Stuart 7 Mar 1640 12 Dec 1672 32
to     Created Baron Stuart of Newbury and
12 Dec 1672 Earl of Lichfield 10 Dec 1645
Succeeded to the Dukedom of Richmond (qv)
in 1660 - peerages extinct 1672
19 Apr 1628 B[S] 1 Sir John Stewart c 1600 27 Mar 1659
Created Lord Stewart of Traquair
19 Apr 1628 and Lord Linton and
Caberston and Earl of Traquair
23 Jun 1633
See "Traquair"
1 Jan 1917 B 1 Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley 15 Sep 1851 24 Apr 1926 74
to     Created Baron Stuart of Wortley
24 Apr 1926 1 Jan 1917
MP for Sheffield 1880-1885 and Hallam
1885-1916.  PC 1896
Peerage extinct on his death
26 Oct 2015 B[L] 1 Sir Robert Andrew Stunell 24 Nov 1942
Created Baron Stunell for life 26 Oct 2015
MP for Hazel Grove 1997-2015. PC 2012
16 Aug 1672 B 1 Henry Fitzroy 2 Sep 1663 9 Oct 1690 27
Created Baron Sudbury,Viscount
Ipswich,Earl of Euston 16 Aug 1672
and Duke of Grafton 11 Sep 1675
See "Grafton"
29 Dec 1299 B 1 John de Sudeley c 1257 1336
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Sudeley 29 Dec 1299
1336 2 John de Sudeley 1340
1340 3 John de Sudeley c 1337 11 Aug 1367
to     On his death the peerage fell into abeyance
11 Aug 1367
1380 4 Thomas Boteler 1355 20 Sep 1398 43
He became sole heir in 1380
20 Sep 1398 5 John Boteler 1417
1417 6 Ralph Boteler 2 May 1473
10 Sep 1441 B 1 Created Baron Sudeley 10 Sep 1441
to     Lord High Treasurer 1444-1447.  KG 1440
2 May 1473 On his death the Barony of 1441 became
extinct and the Barony of 1299 fell into
12 Jul 1838 B 1 Charles Hanbury-Tracy 28 Dec 1778 10 Feb 1858 79
Created Baron Sudeley 12 Jul 1838
MP for Tewkesbury 1807-1812 and 1832-
1837. Lord Lieutenant Montgomery 1848-1858
10 Feb 1858 2 Thomas Charles Hanbury-Tracy 5 Feb 1801 19 Feb 1863 62
MP for Wallingford 1831-1832. Lord
Lieutenant Montgomery 1858-1863
19 Feb 1863 3 Sudeley Charles George Hanbury-Tracy 9 Apr 1837 28 Apr 1877 40
Lord Lieutenant Montgomery 1863-1877
28 Apr 1877 4 Charles Douglas Richard Hanbury-Tracy 3 Jul 1840 9 Dec 1922 82
MP for Montgomery 1863-1877  PC 1886
9 Dec 1922 5 William Charles Frederick Hanbury-Tracy 19 Aug 1870 5 Sep 1932 62
5 Sep 1932 6 Richard Algernon Frederick Hanbury-Tracy 20 Apr 1911 26 Aug 1941 30
26 Aug 1941 7 Merlin Charles Sainthill Hanbury-Tracy 17 Jun 1939
15 Aug 1758 V[I] 1 Sir Arthur Gore 17 Apr 1773
Created Baron Saunders and Viscount
Sudley 15 Aug 1758 and Earl of 
Arran 12 Apr 1762
See "Arran"
7 Nov 1884 B 1 Arthur Saunders Gore,5th Earl of Arran  6 Jan 1839 14 Mar 1901 62
Created Baron Sudley 7 Nov 1884
See "Arran"
21 Aug 1786 B 1 Sir Hardbord Harbord,2nd baronet Jan 1734 4 Feb 1810 76
Created Baron Suffield 21 Aug 1786
MP for Norwich 1756-1786
4 Feb 1810 2 William Assheton Harbord 21 Aug 1766 1 Aug 1821 54
MP for Ludgershall 1790-1796 and Plympton Erle
1807-1810. Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1808-1821
1 Aug 1821 3 Edward Harbord 10 Nov 1781 6 Jul 1835 53
MP for Yarmouth 1806-1812 and 
Shaftesbury 1820-1821
6 Jul 1835 4 Edward Vernon Harbord 19 Jun 1813 22 Aug 1853 40
22 Aug 1853 5 Charles Harbord 2 Jan 1830 9 Apr 1914 84
PC 1886
9 Apr 1914 6 Charles Harbord 14 Jun 1855 10 Feb 1924 68
10 Feb 1924 7 Victor Alexander Charles Harbord 12 Sep 1897 11 Jun 1943 45
11 Jun 1943 8 John Harbord 1 Jul 1907 23 Jun 1945 37
23 Jun 1945 9 Geoffrey Walter Harbord 12 Nov 1861 23 May 1946 84
23 May 1946 10 Richard Morden Harbord-Hamond 24 Aug 1865 2 Feb 1951 85
2 Feb 1951 11 Anthony Philip Harbord-Hamond 19 Jun 1922 8 Dec 2011 89
8 Dec 2011 12 Charles Anthony Assheton Harbord-Hamond 3 Dec 1953 15 Jan 2016 62
15 Jan 2016 13 John Edward Richard Harbord-Hamond 10 Jul 1956
16 Mar 1337 E 1 Robert de Ufford 9 Aug 1298 4 Nov 1369 71
Created Earl of Suffolk 16 Mar 1337
KG c 1348
4 Nov 1369 2 William de Ufford 13 Feb 1382
to     KG 1375
13 Feb 1382 On his death the peerage reverted to the
6 Aug 1385 E 1 Michael de la Pole,1st Lord de la Pole c 1330 5 Sep 1389
to     Created Earl of Suffolk 6 Aug 1385
Feb 1388 Lord Chancellor 1383-1386
He was attainted and the peerages forfeited
1397 2 Michael de la Pole c 1367 14 Sep 1415
Restored to the peerage 1397
14 Sep 1415 3 Michael de la Pole c 1394 25 Oct 1415
25 Oct 1415 4 William de la Pole 16 Oct 1396 2 May 1450 53
2 Jul 1448 D 1 Created Marquess of Suffolk
14 Sep 1444 and Duke of Suffolk
2 Jul 1448
KG 1421
2 May 1450 5 John de la Pole 27 Sep 1442 1492 49
2 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1478-1479
KG c 1473
1492 6 Edmund de la Pole c 1471 5 Apr 1513
to     3 KG 1496
Jan 1504 He surrendered the Dukedom and
Marquessate 26 Feb 1493. He was attainted
and the Earldom forfeited Jan 1504
1 Feb 1514 D 1 Charles Brandon,1st Viscount L'Isle c 1484 22 Aug 1545
Created Duke of Suffolk 1 Feb 1514
Lord President of the Council 1530-1545
KG 1513
22 Aug 1545 2 Henry Brandon 14 Jul 1551
14 Jul 1551 3 Charles Brandon 14 Jul 1551
to     Peerage extinct on his death - he enjoyed
14 Jul 1551 the peerage for only half an hour
11 Oct 1551 D 1 Henry Grey,3rd Marquess of Dorset by 1520 23 Feb 1554
to     Created Duke of Suffolk 11 Oct 1551
23 Feb 1554 He was attainted and the peerages forfeited
21 Jul 1603 E 1 Thomas Howard,1st Lord Howard de Walden 24 Aug 1561 28 May 1626 64
Created Earl of Suffolk 21 Jul 1603
Lord Lieutenant Cambridge 1598, Suffolk
1605 and Dorset 1613. Lord High Treasurer
1614-1619.  KG 1597
28 May 1626 2 Theophilus Howard 13 Aug 1584 3 Jun 1640 55
MP for Maldon 1605-1610. Lord Lieutenant
Cumberland,Westmorland and
Northumberland 1614 and Cambridge, 
Suffolk and Dorset 1626. Lord Warden of
the Cinque Ports 1628.  KG 1627
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Howard de Walden
8 Feb 1610
3 Jun 1640 3 James Howard 10 Feb 1620 7 Jan 1689 68
Lord Lieutenant Suffolk 1642-1681 and
Cambridge 1660-1681
7 Jan 1689 4 George Howard c 1625 21 Apr 1691
21 Apr 1691 5 Henry Howard 18 Jul 1627 10 Nov 1709 82
10 Nov 1709 6 Henry Howard 1670 19 Sep 1718 48
Created Baron Chesterford and Earl
of Bindon 30 Dec 1706
MP for Arundel 1694 and 1695-1698 and Essex
1705-1706. Lord Lieutenant Essex 1715-1718.
President of the Board of Trade 1715-1718
PC 1708
19 Sep 1718 7 Charles William Howard 9 May 1693 9 Feb 1722 28
Lord Lieutenant Essex 1718-1722
The creations of 1706 became extinct on his death
9 Feb 1722 8 Edward Howard 1672 22 Jun 1731 58
22 Jun 1731 9 Charles Howard 1675 28 Sep 1733 58
28 Sep 1733 10 Henry Howard 1 Jan 1706 22 Apr 1745 39
MP for Beeralston 1728-1733
22 Apr 1745 11 Henry Bowes Howard 1686 21 Mar 1757 70
He had previously succeeded as 4th Earl
of Berkshire (qv) in 1706
21 Mar 1757 12 Henry Howard  (also 5th Earl of Berkshire) 16 May 1739 7 Mar 1779 39
Lord Privy Seal 1771. Secretary of State
1771.  PC 1771  KG 1778
8 Aug 1779 13 Henry Howard  (also 6th Earl of Berkshire) 8 Aug 1779 10 Aug 1779 -
10 Aug 1779 14 Thomas Howard  (also 7th Earl of Berkshire) 11 Jun 1721 3 Feb 1783 61
MP for Castle Rising 1747-1768,Malmesbury
1768-1774 and Mitchell 1774-1779
3 Feb 1783 15 John Howard  (also 8th Earl of Berkshire) 7 Mar 1739 23 Jan 1820 80
23 Jan 1820 16 Thomas Howard  (also 9th Earl of Berkshire) 18 Aug 1776 4 Dec 1851 75
MP for Arundel 1802-1806
4 Dec 1851 17 Charles John Howard  (also 10th Earl of Berkshire) 7 Nov 1804 14 Aug 1876 71
MP for Malmesbury 1832-1841
14 Aug 1876 18 Henry Charles Howard  (also 11th Earl of Berkshire) 10 Sep 1833 31 Mar 1898 64
MP for Malmesbury 1859-1868
31 Mar 1898 19 Henry Molyneux Paget Howard  (also 12th Earl
of Berkshire) 13 Sep 1877 21 Apr 1917 39
21 Apr 1917 20 Charles Henry George Howard  (also 13th Earl
of Berkshire) 2 Mar 1906 12 May 1941 35
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of this page.
12 May 1941 21 Michael John James George Robert Howard
(also 14th Earl of Berkshire) 27 Mar 1935
20 Jul 2009 B[L] 1 Sir Alan Michael Sugar 24 Mar 1947
Created Baron Sugar for life 20 Jul 2009
30 Aug 2016 B[L] 1 Elizabeth Grace Sugg
Created Baroness Sugg for life 30 Aug 2016
19 Feb 1766 B[I] 1 Elizabeth Ormsby Rowley 1713 18 Dec 1791 78
Created Baroness Summerhill and
Viscountess Langford 19 Feb 1766
See "Langford"
4 Feb 1961 B[L] 1 Edith Clara Summerskill 19 Apr 1901 4 Feb 1980 78
to     Created Baroness Summerskill for life
4 Feb 1980 4 Feb 1961
MP for Fulham West 1938-1955 and 
Warrington 1955-1961. Minister of National
Insiurance 1950-1951.  PC 1949  CH 1966
Peerage extinct on her death
31 Jan 1927 V 1 Sir John Andrew Hamilton 3 Feb 1859 24 May 1934 75
to     Created Baron Sumner 20 Oct 1913
24 May 1934 and Viscount Sumner 31 Jan 1927
Lord Justice of Appeal 1912-1913. Lord
of Appeal in Ordinary 1913-1930  PC 1912
Peerages extinct on his death
19 Oct 1714 V 1 Charles Montague 16 Apr 1661 19 May 1715 54
to     Created Baron Halifax 13 Dec 1700 and
19 May 1715 Viscount Sunbury and Earl of Halifax 
19 Oct 1714
Viscountcy and Earldom extinct on his death
14 Jun 1715 V 1 George Montague,2nd Baron Halifax c 1684 9 May 1739
Created Viscount Sunbury and Earl of
Halifax 14 Jun 1715
See "Halifax"
19 Jun 1627 E 1 Emanuel Scrope,11th Lord Scrope of Bolton 30 May 1630
to     Created Earl of Sunderland
30 May 1630 19 Jun 1627
Peerage extinct on his death
8 Jun 1643 E 1 Henry Spencer,3rd Baron Spencer of 
Wormleighton 23 Nov 1620 20 Sep 1643 22
Created Earl of Sunderland 8 Jun 1643
20 Sep 1643 2 Robert Spencer 1640 28 Sep 1702 62
Secretary of State 1679-1681,1683 and
1685-1688. Lord President of the Council
1685-1688. Lord Lieutenant Stafford 1679-
1681 and Warwick 1683-1686 and 1687-
1689.  PC 1679  KG 1687
28 Sep 1702 3 Charles Spencer 23 Apr 1675 19 Apr 1722 46
MP for Tiverton 1695-1702. Secretary of
State 1706-1710 and 1717-1718. Lord Privy
Seal 1715-1716. Lord President of the
Council 1718-1719. Prime Minister 1718-
1721.  PC 1706  KG 1719
19 Apr 1722 4 Robert Spencer 24 Oct 1701 15 Sep 1729 27
15 Sep 1729 5 Charles Spencer 22 Nov 1706 20 Oct 1758 51
He succeeded to the Dukedom of Marlborough
(qv) in 1733 with which title this peerage then
merged and so remains
30 Jun 1785 B[I] 1 Richard Malone 1737 14 Apr 1816 78
21 Nov 1797 B[I] 1 Created Baron Sunderlin 30 Jun 1785
to     and 21 Nov 1797
14 Apr 1816 Peerages extinct on his death
For details of the special remainder included in the
creation of 1797, see the note at the foot of 
this page
2 Jun 1735 B[I] 1 William Clayton 9 Nov 1671 29 Apr 1752 80
to     Created Baron Sundon 2 Jun 1735
29 Apr 1752 MP for Woodstock 1716-1722, St.Albans 
1722-1727, Westminster 1727-1741,
Plympton Erle 1742-1747 and St.Mawes 
Peerage extinct on his death
22 Dec 1766 B 1 John Campbell,later [1770] 5th Duke of Argyll    Jun 1723 24 May 1806 82
Created Baron Sundridge 22 Dec 1766
The creation of this peerage included a special
remainder,failing heirs male of his body,to his two
See "Argyll" with which title this peerage
remains merged
11 Sep 2014 B[L] 1 Ranbir Singh Suri
Created Baron Suri for life 11 Sep 2014
1088 E 1 William de Warenne 24 Jun 1099
Created Earl of Surrey 1088
24 Jun 1099 2 William de Warenne 11 May 1138
11 May 1138 3 William de Warenne c 1119 19 Jan 1148
19 Jan 1148 4 Isabel de Warenne 13 Jul 1199
13 Jul 1199 5 William de Warenne 27 May 1240
27 May 1240 6 John de Warenne 1231 27 Sep 1305 74
He was created Earl of Sussex (qv) c 1282
27 Sep 1305 7 John de Warenne 29 Jun 1286 30 Jun 1347 61
30 Jun 1347 8 Richard Fitzalan,3rd Earl of Arundel c 1306 24 Jan 1376
24 Jan 1376 9 Richard Fitzalan,4th Earl of Arundel c 1348 18 Sep 1397
to     He was attainted and the peerages forfeited
18 Sep 1397 but see below
29 Sep 1397 D 1 Thomas de Holand,3rd Earl of Kent c 1371 6 Jan 1400
to     Created Duke of Surrey 29 Sep 1397
1399 He was degraded from the Dukedom 1399
Oct 1400 10 Thomas Fitzalan 13 Oct 1381 13 Oct 1415 34
to     Restored to the Earldoms of Surrey and
13 Oct 1415 Arundel Oct 1400. On his death the peerages
reverted to the crown
24 Mar 1451 E 1 John Mowbray 18 Oct 1444 17 Jan 1476 31
to     Created Earl of Surrey 24 Mar 1451
17 Jan 1476 He later succeeded to the Dukedom of
Norfolk in 1461
Peerages extinct on his death
28 Jun 1483 E 1 Thomas Howard c 1443 21 May 1524
Created Earl of Surrey 28 Jun 1483
Later restored to the Dukedom of Norfolk (qv) 1514
21 May 1524 2 Thomas Howard,3rd Duke of Norfolk 1473 25 Aug 1554 81
25 Aug 1554 3 Thomas Howard,4th Duke of Norfolk 10 Mar 1536 2 Jun 1572 36
to     He was attainted and the peerages forfeited
2 Jun 1572
1604 4 Thomas Howard 7 Jul 1585 4 Oct 1646 61
Restored to the Earldoms of Surrey,
Arundel and Norfolk 1604
4 Oct 1646 5 Henry Frederick Howard 15 Aug 1608 17 Apr 1652 43
17 Apr 1652 6 Thomas Howard
He was restored to the Dukedom of Norfolk
in 1660 with which title this peerage then
1141 E 1 William de Albini 4 Oct 1176
Created Earl of Sussex 1141
4 Oct 1176 2 William de Albini 24 Dec 1193
24 Dec 1193 3 William de Albini Mar 1221
Mar 1221 4 William de Albini Aug 1224
Aug 1224 5 William de Albini 12 May 1243
to     On his death the peerage reverted to the
12 May 1243 crown
c 1282 E 1 John de Warenne 1231 27 Sep 1305 74
Created Earl of Sussex c 1282
27 Sep 1305 2 John de Warenne 29 Jun 1286 30 Jun 1347 61
to     On his death the peerage reverted to the
30 Jun 1347 crown
8 Dec 1529 E 1 Robert Radclyffe c 1483 27 Nov 1542
Created Viscount Fitzwalter 18 Jun 
1525 and Earl of Sussex 8 Dec 1529
Lord Lieutenant Lancashire 1537. KG 1524
27 Nov 1542 2 Henry Radclyffe c 1507 17 Feb 1557
KG 1554
17 Feb 1557 3 Thomas Radclyffe c 1525 9 Jun 1583
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1556-1558,1559-
1560 and 1560-1565. Lord Lieutenant 
Norfolk and Suffolk 1557. KG 1557
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Fitzwalter 24 Aug 1553
9 Jun 1583 4 Henry Radclyffe c 1532 14 Dec 1593
MP for Maldon 1555, Hampshire 1571 and
Portsmouth 1572-1583. Lord Lieutenant
Hampshire 1585. KG 1589
14 Dec 1593 5 Robert Radclyffe 12 Jun 1573 22 Sep 1629 56
Lord Lieutenant Essex 1603.  KG 1599
22 Sep 1629 6 Edward Radclyffe c 1559 Aug 1643
to     MP for Petersfield 1586-1587, Bedford
Aug 1643 1588-1589,1601 and 1604-1612 and
Portsmouth 1592-1593.
Peerage extinct on his death
25 May 1644 E 1 Thomas Savile 14 Sep 1590 c 1659
Created Baron of Castlebar and
Viscount Savile 11 Jun 1628 and Earl
of Sussex 25 May 1644
MP for Yorkshire 1624-1625. Lord
Lieutenant Yorkshire 1641
c 1659 2 James Savile 1647 Oct 1671 24
to     Peerages extinct on his death
Oct 1671
5 Oct 1674 E 1 Thomas Lennard,15th Lord Dacre c 1653 30 Oct 1715
to     Created Earl of Sussex 5 Oct 1674
30 Oct 1715 Peerage extinct on his death
26 Feb 1717 E 1 Talbot Yelverton,2nd Viscount Longueville 2 May 1690 27 Oct 1731 41
Created Earl of Sussex 26 Feb 1717
This creation contained a special remainder,
failing the heirs male of his body,to his brother,
Henry Yelverton
PC 1727
27 Oct 1731 2 George Augustus Yelverton 27 Jul 1727 8 Jan 1758 30
8 Jan 1758 3 Henry Yelverton 7 Jul 1728 22 Apr 1799 70
to     Peerage extinct on his death
22 Apr 1799
27 Nov 1801 D 1 Augustus Frederick 27 Jan 1773 21 Apr 1843 70
to     Created Baron of Arklow,Earl of
21 Apr 1843 Inverness and Duke of Sussex 
27 Nov 1801
Sixth son of George III. President of the
Royal Society 1830-1838.  KG 1786
PC 1804  KT 1830
Peerages extinct on his death
For further information on this peer and his
marriages, and details of the claim made to the 
peerages in 1844, see the note at the foot of 
this page
24 May 1874 E 1 Arthur William Patrick Albert 1 May 1850 16 Jan 1942 91
Created Earl of Sussex and Duke of
Connaught & Strathearn 24 May 1874
See "Connaught and Strathearn"
16 Jul 2018 D 1 HRH Henry Charles Albert David 15 Sep 1984
Created Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton
and Duke of Sussex 19 May 2018
1235 E[S] 1 William Sutherland 1248
Created Earl of Sutherland 1235
1248 2 William Sutherland Sep 1307
Sep 1307 3 William Sutherland Dec 1330
Dec 1330 4 Kenneth Sutherland 19 Jul 1333
19 Jul 1333 5 William Sutherland c 1370
c 1370 6 Robert Sutherland c 1427
c 1427 7 John Sutherland 1460
1460 8 John Sutherland 1508
1508 9 John Sutherland Jun 1514
Jun 1514 10 Elizabeth Sutherland Sep 1535
She married Adam Gordon who was 
considered to be Earl in her right. He died
17 Mar 1537
17 Mar 1537 11 John Gordon 1525 23 Jun 1567 41
23 Jun 1567 12 Alexander Gordon 1552 4 Dec 1594 42
4 Dec 1594 13 John Gordon 20 Jul 1576 11 Sep 1615 39
11 Sep 1615 14 John Gordon 4 Mar 1609 14 Oct 1679 70
Lord Privy Seal [S] 1641
14 Oct 1679 15 George Gordon 2 Nov 1633 4 Mar 1703 69
4 Mar 1703 16 John Sutherland 2 Mar 1661 27 Jun 1733 72
KT 1716  PC 1721
27 Jun 1733 17 William Sutherland 2 Oct 1708 7 Dec 1750 42
MP for Sutherland 1727-1733
7 Dec 1750 18 William Sutherland 29 May 1735 16 Jun 1766 31
16 Jun 1766 19 Elizabeth Sutherland 24 May 1765 29 Jan 1839 73
She married George Granville Leveson-
Gower who was created Duke of Sutherland
in 1833 (see below)
29 Jan 1839 20 George Granville Sutherland-Leveson-
Gower,2nd Duke of Sutherland 8 Aug 1786 28 Feb 1861 74
28 Feb 1861 21 George Granville William Sutherland-
Leveson-Gower,3rd Duke of Sutherland 19 Dec 1828 22 Sep 1892 63
22 Sep 1892 22 Cromartie Sutherland-Leveson-Gower,
4th Duke of Sutherland 20 Jul 1851 27 Jun 1913 61
27 Jun 1913 23 George Granville Sutherland-Leveson-
Gower,5th Duke of Sutherland 29 Aug 1888 1 Feb 1963 74
1 Feb 1963 24 Elizabeth Millicent Sutherland 30 Mar 1921 9 Dec 2019 98
9 Dec 2019 25 Alistair Charles St.Clair Sutherland 7 Jan 1947
28 Jan 1833 D 1 George Granville Leveson-Gower,2nd Marquess 9 Jan 1758 19 Jul 1833 75
of Stafford
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Gower 25 Feb 1799.
Created Duke of Sutherland 28 Jan 1833
MP for Newcastle under Lyne 1778-1784
and Staffordshire 1787-1799. Lord Lieutenant
Stafford 1799-1801 and Sutherland 1794-1830  
PC 1790  KG 1806
For further information on this peer,and his role in 
the "Highland Clearances",see the note at the
foot of this page
19 Jul 1833 2 George Granville Sutherland-Leveson-
Gower 8 Aug 1786 28 Feb 1861 74
MP for St.Mawes 1808-1812, Newcastle
under Lyne 1812-1815 and Staffordshire
1815-1820. Lord Lieutenant Sutherland
1830-1861 and Shropshire 1839-1845. 
KG 1841
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Gower 25 Nov 1826
28 Feb 1861 3 George Granville William Sutherland-
Leveson-Gower 19 Dec 1828 22 Sep 1892 63
MP for Sutherland 1852-1861. Lord
Lieutenant Cromarty 1853-1892 and Sutherland
1861-1892.  KG 1864
For information on the Duke's second wife,
see the note at the foot of this page
22 Sep 1892 4 Cromartie Sutherland-Leveson-Gower 20 Jul 1851 27 Jun 1913 61
MP for Sutherland 1874-1886. Lord
Lieutenant Sutherland 1892-1913. KG 1902
27 Jun 1913 5 George Granville Sutherland-Leveson-
Gower 29 Aug 1888 1 Feb 1963 74
Lord Lieutenant Sutherland 1913-1945.
Paymaster General 1925-1928.  KT 1929
PC 1936
1 Feb 1963 6 John Sutherland Egerton,5th Earl of Ellesmere 10 May 1915 21 Sep 2000 85
21 Sep 2000 7 Francis Ronald Egerton 18 Feb 1940
29 Jun 2001 B[L] 1 Sir Stewart Ross Sutherland 25 Feb 1941 29 Jan 2018 76
to     Created Baron Sutherland of Houndwood
29 Jan 2018 for life 29 Jun 2001
KT 2002
Peerage extinct on his death
17 Sep 2013 B[L] 1 Alison Mary Suttie 27 Aug 1968
Created Baroness Suttie for life 17 Sep 2013
30 Dec 1324 B 1 John de Sutton 24 Jun 1270 24 Sep 1338 68
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Sutton 30 Dec 1324
24 Sep 1338 2 John de Sutton 3 May 1356
3 May 1356 3 Thomas de Sutton after 1356
to     On his death the peerage fell into abeyance
after 1356
22 Sep 1958 B[L] 1 Stella Isaacs, Dowager Marchioness of Reading 6 Jan 1894 22 May 1971 77
to     Created Baroness Swanborough for life
22 May 1971 22 Sep 1958
Peerage extinct on her death
16 Feb 1981 B[L] 1 Sir Michael Meredith Swann 1 Mar 1920 22 Sep 1990 70
to     Created Baron Swann for life 16 Feb 1981
22 Sep 1990 Peerage extinct on his death
9 Jun 1893 B 1 Sir Henry Hussey Vivian,1st baronet 6 Jul 1821 28 Nov 1894 73
Created Baron Swansea 9 Jun 1893
MP for Truro 1852-1857, Glamorgan 1857-
1885 and Swansea District 1885-1893
28 Nov 1894 2 Ernest Ambrose Vivian 11 Feb 1848 17 Jul 1932 74
17 Jul 1932 3 Odo Richard Vivian 22 Apr 1875 16 Nov 1934 59
16 Nov 1934 4 John Hussey Hamilton Vivian 1 Jan 1925 24 Jun 2005 80
24 Jun 2005 5 Richard Anthony Hussey Vivian 24 Jan 1957
18 Jul 1907 B 1 Sir Montagu Samuel-Montagu,1st baronet 21 Dec 1832 12 Jan 1911 78
Created Baron Swaythling 18 Jul 1907
MP for Whitechapel 1885-1900
12 Jan 1911 3 Louis Samuel Montagu 10 Dec 1869 11 Jun 1927 57
11 Jun 1927 3 Stuart Albert Montagu 19 Dec 1898 5 Jan 1990 91
5 Jan 1990 4 David Charles Samuel Montagu 6 Aug 1928 1 Jul 1998 69
1 Jul 1998 5 Charles Edgar Samuel Montagu 20 Feb 1954
3 Dec 1326 B 1 Adam Swillington Jun 1328
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Swillington 3 Dec 1326
Jun 1328 2 Adam Swillington after 1328
after 1328 3 Robert Swillington c 1380
c 1380 4 Thomas Swillington after 1405
after 1405 5 Elizabeth Swillington c 1405 after 1430
to     Nothing further is known of this peerage
after 1430
1 Nov 1919 B 1 Sir Charles Swinfen Eady 31 Jul 1851 15 Nov 1919 68
Created Baron Swinfen 1 Nov 1919
Lord Justice of Appeal 1913. Master of the
Rolls 1918-1919.  PC 1913
15 Nov 1919 2 Charles Swinfen Eady 22 Feb 1904 19 Mar 1977 73
19 Mar 1977 3 Roger Mynors Swinfen Eady  [Elected hereditary 14 Dec 1938 5 Jun 2022 83
peer 1999-2022]
5 Jun 2022 4 Charles Roger Peregrine Swinfen Eady 8 Mar 1971
5 May 1955 E 1 Philip Cunliffe-Lister [originally Lloyd-Greame - name 1 May 1884 27 Jul 1972 88
changed 7 Nov 1924]
Created Viscount Swinton 29 Nov 1935 and
Baron Masham and Earl of Swinton
5 May 1955
MP for Hendon 1918-1935. President of the
Board of Trade 1922-1924, 1924-1929 and
1931. Secretary of State for Colonies
1931-1935. Secretary of State for Air
1935-1938. Minister of Civil Aviation 1944-
1945. Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster and Minister of Materials 1951-
1952. Secretary of State for Commonwealth
Relations 1952-1955. PC 1922  CH 1943
27 Jul 1972 2 David Yarburgh Cunliffe-Lister 21 Mar 1937 26 Mar 2006 69
26 Mar 2006 3 Nicholas John Cunliffe-Lister 4 Sep 1939 21 Mar 2021 81
21 Mar 2021 4 Mark William Philiip Cunliffe-Lister 15 Sep 1970
23 Apr 1337 B 1 Sir Roger Swynerton Mar 1338
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Swynerton 23 Apr 1337
Mar 1338 2 Robert Swynerton c 1312 1350
1350 3 Thomas Swynerton Dec 1361
Dec 1361 4 Robert Swynerton by 1396
to     On his death the peerage became dormant
by 1396
19 Aug 1840 B 1 Charles Edward Poulett-Thomson 13 Sep 1799 19 Sep 1841 42
to     Created Baron Sydenham 19 Aug 1840
19 Sep 1841 MP for Dover 1826-1830 and Manchester
1830-1839. Vice President of the Board of
Trade 1830. President of the Board of 
Trade 1834 and 1835-1839. Governor
General of Canada 1839-1841.  PC 1830
Peerage extinct on his death
12 Feb 1913 B 1 Sir George Sydenham Clarke 4 Jul 1848 7 Feb 1933 84
to     Created Baron Sydenham of Combe
7 Feb 1933 12 Feb 1913
Governor of Victoria 1901-1903 and 
Bombay 1907-1913
Peerage extinct on his death
13 May 1603 B 1 Robert Sydney 28 Nov 1563 13 Jul 1626 62
Created Baron Sydney 13 May 1603,
Viscount L'Isle 4 May 1605 and Earl of
Leicester 2 Aug 1618
See "Leicester"
11 Jul 1689 Robert Sydney 1649 11 Nov 1702 53
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Sydney 11 Jul 1689
He succeeded as Earl of Leicester (qv) in 1698
9 Apr 1689 V 1 Henry Sydney c 1641 8 Apr 1704
to     Created Baron Milton and Viscount
8 Apr 1704 Sydney 9 Apr 1689 and Earl of Romney
14 May 1694
See "Romney"
14 Jul 1768 B[I] 1 Dudley Alexander Sydney Cosby c 1730 17 Jan 1774
to     Created Baron Sydney 14 Jul 1768
17 Jan 1774 Peerage extinct on his death
11 Jun 1789 V 1 Thomas Townshend 24 Feb 1733 30 Jun 1800 67
Created Baron Sydney 6 Mar 1783
and Viscount Sydney 11 Jun 1789
MP for Whitchurch 1754-1783. Paymaster
General 1767-1768. Secretary at War 
1782. Home Secretary 1782-1783 and 1783-
1789.  PC 1767
30 Jun 1800 2 John Thomas Townshend 21 Feb 1764 20 Jan 1831 66
MP for Newport 1786-1790 and Whitchurch
20 Jan 1831 3 John Robert Townshend 9 Aug 1805 14 Feb 1890 84
27 Feb 1874 E 1 Created Earl Sydney 27 Feb 1874
to     MP for Whitchurch 1826-1831. Lord 
14 Feb 1890 Lieutenant Kent 1856-1890.  PC 1853
Peerages extinct on his death
7 Oct 1996 B[L] 1 Elizabeth Conway Symons 14 Apr 1951
Created Baroness Symons of Vernham
Dean for life 7 Oct 1996
PC 2001
24 Jun 1935 B 1 Sir Frederick Edward Grey Ponsonby 16 Sep 1867 30 Oct 1935 68
Created Baron Sysonby 24 Jun 1935
PC 1914
30 Oct 1935 2 Edward Gaspard Ponsonby 7 Jun 1903 21 Jan 1956 52
21 Jan 1956 3 John Frederick Ponsonby 5 Aug 1945 23 Oct 2009 64
to     Peerage extinct on his death
23 Oct 2009  
The special remainder to the Barony of Stratheden
From the "London Gazette" of 19 January 1836 (issue 19348, page 100):-
"The King has....been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal,
granting the dignity of a Baroness of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to the
Honourable Mary Elizabeth Lady Campbell, wife of Sir John Campbell, Knt. His Majesty's
Attorney-General, and eldest daughter of the Right Honourable James Baron Abinger, by the
name, style, and title of Baroness Stratheden, of Cupar, in the county of Fife, and, at her
decease, the dignity of a Baron of the said United Kingdom to the heirs male, of the body of
the said Mary Elizabeth Lady Campbell lawfully begotten by the said Sir John Campbell, by the
name, style, and title of Baron Stratheden, of Cupar, in the county of Fife."
Charles Lyon, 6th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
Charles Lyon succeeded his brother, John, as 6th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne in 1715,
following John's death at the Battle of Sheriffmuir, which was fought between the followers of
the Old Pretender and those of George I as part of the Jacobite Uprising of that year.
On 25 July 1725, Charles married Lady Susan Cochrane. For more information on this lady, see
the separate note devoted to her below. 
On 9 May 1728, Charles attended the funeral of the daughter of Mr. Carnegie, of Lour, in Forfar.
Also present at the funeral were a number of others, including Mr. James Carnegie, of Finhaven 
(brother of Carnegie of Lour) and a Mr. Lyon of Bridgeton. After the funeral, Charles, Carnegie of
Finhaven and Lyon of Bridgeton visited a tavern, where a great deal of alcohol was consumed.
Leaving the tavern, Charles, followed by the others, visited the house of Carnegie's sister,
where Lyon of Bridgeton was extremely rude to both the lady and Carnegie of Finhaven. After
leaving the house, Bridgeton pushed Carnegie of Finhaven into a filthy ditch, leaving Finhaven
covered with filth. Finhaven drew his sword and ran after Bridgeton, intending to strike him,
but Charles pushed himself between Finhaven and Bridgeton, and was run through, dying two
days later.
The following account of Carnegie of Finhaven's trial appeared in the [London] Daily Journal of 
10 August 1728:-
'Yesterday came on the Tryal of Mr. Carnegie, of Finhaven, who has been accused as guilty of
the Murder of the late Earl of Strathmore, at Forfar, on the 9th of May last. The Tryal lasted
from 9 in the Morning till near 1 o'Clock this Morning, when the Jury was inclosed, and this Day
at Noon, they returned their Verdict Not guilty. The Sum of the Evidence was, That the Defunct
and the Prisoner had been in Company together a great Part of that Day, conversing in a 
familiar and friendly Manner without any Appearance of Enmity or Quarrel betwixt them. That 
they both went from a Tavern in Forfar, where they had been drinking plentifully, to visit a
Lady in that Town, a common Relation of them both, where their mutual Civilities and 
Demonstrations of Friendship continued without Interruption. That in this Place another
Gentleman in the Company, Mr. Lyon of Brigton, behaved very rudely towards the Prisoner, who
was then very drunk, and when the Company left that House, the deceased Earl, with one of
his Brothers, and the Lord Rosehill, walked up the Street, and left the Prisoner coming up behind 
them; that as these two were coming by a nasty deep Channel, which was by the Side of the
Street, and received all the Filth of the Shambles, Brigton laid hold on the Prisoner, and flung
him violently backwards into the Channel, where he plunged till he was almost quite covered,
and the other walk'd off and left him there; that one of the deceased Earl's Servants took the
Prisoner out of the Channel, who immediately drew his Sword and ran after Brigton, and came
up with him just as he came up close behind the Earl, whose Sword he endeavour'd to draw;
that upon this the Earl turning about, perceived the Prisoner making at Brigton with his drawn
Sword, and to save him interposed himself, in the Instant the Prisoner was making a Pass at the
other, which the Earl unhappily received; that the Prisoner did not know, till he was in Custody,
that he had at all wounded the Earl; and when he heard it from the Minister of the Parish, who
went to visit the Prisoner, upon his first Commitment, fell into an Anguish, almost to a Pitch of
Distraction, crying out, Good god! Have I wounded the Earl of Strathmore, whom I loved so
well, and had no Design against? and that the Earl declared to his Physicians his Sense of the
Innocence of the Prisoner's Intention as to him.'
Until this case, the alternatives available to Scottish juries were verdicts of "proven" and "not
proven." However, in this case, even when the facts of the case were proven, the jury brought
in a verdict of "not guilty." As the Scottish legal system subsequently developed, the verdict of
"not proven" came to mean "we don't have sufficient evidence to prove that you did it, but we
also don't have sufficient evidence to prove that you are not guilty."
Susan Lyon, Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne (widow of the 6th Earl)
Susan was the second daughter of John Cochrane, 4th Earl of Dundonald and his wife, Lady
Anne Murray, daughter of the 1st Earl of Dunmore. She had two sisters - Lady Anne, who
married the 5th Duke of Hamilton, and Lady Catherine, who married the 6th Earl of Galloway.
She was born around 1707, and in July 1725, she married Charles Lyon, 6th Earl of Strathmore
and Kinghorne. After a marriage of only three years, her husband was killed in a drunken brawl,
the details of which are outlined in the preceding note. Susan therefore became a widow at 
the age of about 20. Due to her youth and her wealth, there was no shortage of suitors for
her hand in marriage, but she refused them all. Instead, she spent the next seventeen years
devoting herself to good works.
In 1745, however, she became involved in a scandal. She was still on the right side of 40 years
old, and romance and passion still burned within her. The following story is extracted from 
"Love Romances of the Aristocracy" by Thornton Hall (Werner Laurie, London, 1911).
'Among the Countess's many servants was one George Forbes, a young and strikingly handsome
groom, who had been taken on as a stable-boy by her late husband. Forbes was a simple, 
manly fellow, a peasant's son, and with no ambition beyond the state of life to which he had 
been born. He was proud of the fact that he had served his mistress well, and that she liked
him. That Lady Strathmore valued her groom was proved by the fact that she chose him as her
escort whenever she went riding, and that she promoted him to the charge of her stables - a
proof of confidence which no doubt he had earned. But that his high-placed mistress should
regard him otherwise than as a servant was an absurd idea which never entered his head.
'One day, however, the Countess summoned the groom to her presence, and, to his amazement
and embarrassment, told him that she had long grown to love him, and that she asked nothing
better of life than to become his wife. Overcome with surprise and confusion, Forbes protested
"But my lady, think of the difference between us. You are one of the greatest ladies of the 
land, and I am no better than the earth you tread on." "You must not say that," the Countess
replied. "You are more to me than rank or riches. These I count as nothing, compared with the
happiness you have it in your power to bestow."
'In the face of such pleading, from one so beautiful and so reverenced, what could the poor
groom do but consent, fearful though he was of the consequences of such an ill-assorted union?
And thus strangely and romantically it was that, one April day in 1745, the Countess of 
Strathmore, the descendant of dukes and kings, gave her hand at the altar to the ex-stable-lad
and peasant's son.
'What followed this singular union was precisely what was to be expected. The Countess was
disowned by her noble relatives; her friends with one consent gave her the cold shoulder; and, 
unable to bear any longer the constant slights and her complete isolation, she was thankful to
escape with her low-born husband to the Continent.
'Here familiarity with the groom quickly, and naturally, perhaps, bred contempt and disillusion.
His coarseness offended every susceptibility; he was frankly impossible in such an intimate
relation; and after she had given birth to a daughter in Holland, she arranged a separation, for
which the groom was, at least, as grateful as herself. The child - the very sight of whom, 
reminding her as she did of her father, she could not bear - was placed in a convent at Rouen,
where she was tenderly cared for by the abbess and nuns. As for the mother, weary and
disillusioned, she rambled aimlessly and miserably about the Continent until, after nine years
of unhappiness, death came to her at Paris as a merciful friend [23 June 1754]. Such was the
sordid close of a life that had opened as fairly as any that has fallen to the lot of woman.
'And what of the child who drew from her mother royal and ducal strains, and from her father
the blood of stablemen and peasants? At the Rouen convent she grew up to girlhood, perfectly
happy, among the nuns she learned to love. The sad and beautiful lady who had come once or
twice to see her, and who, she was told, was her mother, had become a dim memory of early
girlhood. Who the great lady was, and who was her father, she did not know. This knowledge 
the nuns, in their wisdom, kept from her - if, indeed, they knew themselves.
'One day, in 1761, her days of childish happiness came to an abrupt and sensational end. A 
rough seafaring man called at the convent with a letter from her father demanding the return of
his daughter. The bearer was sent by the captain of a merchant-vessel, who had instructions
to convey the girl from Rouen to Leith; and, after an affecting farewell to the abbess and nuns,
who had been so kind to her, Susan Janet Emilia (for that was the girl's name) started with her
strange escort on the long journey to a parent who she had never consciously seen. The father,
released by the death of the Countess, had married a second wife  of his own station, and had
settled as a livery-stable keeper at Leith, where, with his rapidly-growing family, he had now
made his home for some years.
'At last Emilia was handed over to the custody of her groom-father, who conducted her to his
home, which, as may be imagined, was a pitiful and sordid exchange for the peace and 
happiness of her convent life. From the first day the new life was impossible. Emilia was treated
by her stepmother with coarseness and brutality; she was daily taunted with her dependent
position, and shown in a hundred ways that her presence was unwelcome.
'Can one wonder that the proud spirit of the girl rebelled against such ignominy? It was better
far to trust to the mercy of the world than to bear the brutal treatment of her low-born step-
mother. And thus it came to pass that, early one morning, before the household was awake,
Emilia slipped stealthily away with a few shillings, all her worldly possessions, in her pocket. 
Walking a few miles along the shore, she took the packet-boat, and crossed to the Fife coast,
thus placing a broad arm of the sea between herself and the house of misery and oppression
she had left for ever.
'For days this descendant of Scotland's proudest nobles tramped aimlessly through the country,
sleeping in barns or craving the shelter of the humblest cottage, and, when her money was
exhausted, even begging her bread from door to door.
'At last human nature reached its limit. Late one night, footsore and fainting from exhaustion
and hunger, she presented herself at a remote farmhouse, and begged piteously for a meal and
a night's rest. None but the hardest heart could have resisted such a pathetic appeal, and 
Farmer Lauder and his good wife had hearts as large as their bodies. At last the waif had fallen
among good Samaritans. She was received with open arms; and instead of being sent away in
the morning, was cordially invited to make her home with them.
'The rest of Emilia's strange life-story can be told in few words. After a few years of peaceful
and happy life in the hospitable farmhouse, she married the farmer's only son, an honest and
worthy young fellow who loved her dearly. She became the mother of many children, who in
their humble life knew nothing of the high-placed cousins, the Dukes and Earls of another world
than theirs.
'When, in the process of time, her husband died - many of her children had died young, the rest
were far from prosperous - Mrs. Lauder retired to spend her last days in a small cottage at St.
Ninian's, near Stirling, where for a time she lived in the utmost poverty. Then , when her life was
almost flickering out in destitution, a few of her great relatives condescended to acknowledge
her existence. The Earls of Galloway and Dunmore, the Duke of Hamilton, and Mrs. Stewart
Mackenzie combined to provide her with an annuity of £100; and, thus secure from want, the
old lady contrived to spin out the thread of her days a few years longer. Thus died, at the
advanced age of eighty-five, eating the bread of charity, the woman who had in her veins the
blood of Scotland's greatest men and her fairest women.'
Mary Eleanor Bowes, wife of the 9th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
Mary's domestic affairs kept the public enthralled for 20 years of England's Georgian age. She
was born Mary Eleanor Bowes at Streatlam Castle in Durham on 24 February 1749, the only
daughter of George Bowes, who had amassed vast riches by developing the coal-mines and
iron-works on his ancestral estate. When he died in 1761, Mary, at age 12, found herself the
heiress to 43,000 acres of land and an annual income of £25,000.
Pampered, pretty and precocious, Mary was one of the greatest matrimonial catches of the
day. At 14, she declared herself desperately in love with a brother of the Duke of Buccleuch,
whose proud family promptly packed him off to the army where he conveniently died of
smallpox. Other suitors flocked to Streatlam Castle but, after numerous passionate and 
fleeting affairs, Mary was 17 before she chose John Lyon, 9th Earl of Strathmore, a young
man of such delicate good looks that he was somewhat contemptuously known as 'beautiful
Strathmore.' The Earl was consumptive, slow-witted and, despite his magnificent, but
dilapidated castle at Glamis, extremely poor.
However, Mary's fortune was more than enough to revive the ancient Strathmore splendours.
On Mary's 18th birthday in 1767, the ill-fated young couple were married. By an Act of
Parliament, the Earl assumed his wife's surname. The marriage lasted for nine years until the
Earl's death at sea from TB in 1776, during which time Mary bore her husband five children,
including the ancestor of the late Queen Mother and therefore the present-day Queen. Having
done her duty as a wife, Mary became no longer content to bury herself in the gloomy walls
of Glamis Castle, and by the early 1770s, Mary and the Earl were living almost continually 
apart - she in a mansion in London's Grosvenor Square, he at Glamis or feverishly seeking to
restore his waning health at Bath. Mary was still in her 20s and with an amorous eye. How
many lovers she took no one could accurately count. Two of her lovers were respectable
Scottish squires, James Graham and his brother Robert Graham. Another was George Grey,
a swaggering blackguard of obscure background, who was rumoured to have acquired a
fortune in India by dubious means. By Grey, Mary had at least one child and, according to
rumour she 'suffered the degradation of abortion' when news of her liaison with Grey 
threatened to reach the ears of the Strathmore family.
These diversions, however, paled into insignificance when an elegant and utterly ruthless
Irish adventurer, Andrew Robinson Stoney, burst into her life in the autumn of 1775. Not
until many years later did Mary learn of Stoney's past - how he had been kicked out of the
army and how he had squandered his wife's fortune before killing her by his cruelty. Stoney
set out to charm Mary and within a few weeks of their meeting she was infatuated with him.
Stoney and Mary now waited impatiently for the sickly Earl of Strathmore to quit his life, which
he did in February 1776. However, the Strathmore family immediately launched lawsuits to
rescue the Earl's children from her scandalous household. A series of anonymous letters in the
'Morning Post' had London society licking their lips at the lurid revelations contained in these
letters. To defend his mistress' honour, Stoney promptly challenged the newspaper's owner,
[Sir] Henry Bate Dudley (later 1st baronet) to a duel at the Adelphi Tavern. After a mysterious
affray in which both men were wounded, Stoney's enemies loudly claimed that, since Stoney
was a notorious coward, the fight had obviously been staged.
The jeers of the public left Mary unmoved, and she and Stoney were married on 17 January
1777, three days after the duel. Stoney changed his name to Andrew Stoney Bowes, it being
only fitting, he explained, that the controller of the Bowes fortune should bear the family name.
But, unknown to her husband, Mary had, on the evening before the wedding, executed a 
legal deed tying up all of her property in trust for herself so that Stoney Bowes could not touch
a penny of it.
When he learned of the deed's existence, Bowes raged like a madman and for the first time Mary
realised that she had married a monster. Dragged from London to the seclusion of Streatlam
Castle, she was beaten, abused, half-starved and reduced to a trembling wreck. In May 1777,
terrified for her life, she signed a document revoking the trust deed, thereby giving Bowes full
control of her fortune. This, however, brought no cessation to Bowes' cruelty. He filled the
house in Grosvenor Square with a mob of gamblers, bullies and drunks. No female servant was
safe from his assaults. He boasted openly to Mary of having raped the kitchen maid in London
and the estate labourer's daughters at Streatlam.
For nine years, Mary endured a miserable life with Bowes. Then, in February 1786, she took
flight and vanished. She found shelter with friends in a house in Bloomsbury Square, from
where she appealed to the Ecclesiastical Court for a divorce from Bowes and also began the
legal process to nullify her revocation of the trust deed. Her husband, insane with rage, set
thugs to watch the door of her refuge day and night. On 10 November 1786, the gang swooped,
seizing her in Oxford Street and bundling her into a carriage which was driven to an inn at
Highgate where Bowes was waiting. She was then immediately driven north to Streatlam Castle
where she was imprisoned. After an unsuccessful attempt at rescue by a mob of coal-miners
from the nearby collieries, Bowes dragged his wife into flight again, hoping to lie low in Ireland.
But by now, a warrant had been issued for his arrest and the whole country was aroused. The
end came on 27 November, when he was seized by the village constables of Neasham in 
Durham and sent to London in chains. Bowes spent most of the rest of his life in prison until his
death in 1810.
Mary still had another ordeal to face during her divorce proceedings, when Bowes called every
possible witness to vilify her reputation and dig up scurrilous details of her amorous career. In
the end, Mary was, however, successful, regaining her freedom and her property, before
retiring into rural seclusion in Hampshire until her death on 28 April 1800.
The Monster of Glamis
The Monster of Glamis was allegedly a deformed member of the Bowes-Lyon family who was kept
in seclusion during his lifetime in hidden chambers at Glamis Castle. The truth of the allegations
is not known, and probably never will be.
The alleged Monster has been identified with Thomas Bowes-Lyon, eldest son of Thomas George
Bowes-Lyon, Lord Glamis, son of the 11th Earl of Strathmore and father of the 12th Earl. In
'Burke's Peerage' he is shown as 'a son, b and d 18 Oct 1821.'
Most of the details of the Monster come from the book 'The Queen Mother's Family Story' by
James Wentworth-Day (1967), although the legend had arisen shortly after the birth of the son
in 1821, when the midwife who was present at the birth and who had alleged the child to have
been healthy, became suspicious when the child's death was reported a day or two later.
According to Wentworth-Day, the Monster is described as having 'a chest like an enormous
barrel, hairy as a doormat; his head ran straight into his shoulders and his arms and legs were
toy-like.' Other accounts describe the Monster as 'an enormous flabby egg.' The Monster was
allegedly confined in a 10 ft by 15 ft secret chamber, the entrance to which was bricked up
after his death. He was fed daily through an iron grill in the door by a trusted servant and,
according to some of the stories, was taken for walks on dark nights on the Castle's
battlements. The secret of his existence was known only to the current Earl and the next heir,
who was informed of the secret on his 21st birthday.
Wentworth-Day describes a tale in which a workman carrying out renovations around the
early years of the 20th century accidentally found the secret chamber, resulting in the worker
being paid a fortune in hush money provided he emigrated to Australia. In another well-known
story, guests at the Castle once tried to identify secret rooms by hanging towels or cloths from
every window they could access. On surveying their work, they found a number of vacant
windows, thereby assuming that a number of secret chambers existed. The then Earl was
furious when he heard of this experiment and asked all the guests to leave immediately.
For further reading, cut and paste the following into your browser to view an interesting article in 
the Smithsonian Magazine. My thanks to Michael Rhodes for supplying this information.
A number of other stories surround Glamis Castle and the Bowes-Lyon family. It was here that
Alexander Lindsay, 4th Earl of Crawford, was alleged to have sold his soul to the Devil during
a card-game in the middle of the 15th century, since when he has haunted a sealed chamber
in the west tower of the Castle. For further details, see the note at the foot of the page
containing details of the Earls of Crawford. 
Some authors on the subject of Jack the Ripper have tried to prove that Prince Albert Victor,
Duke of Clarence and eldest son of Edward VII, was the Ripper. This is very easily disproved,
since Court Circulars and similar publications show that the Duke of Clarence was in Yorkshire,
in Scotland or at Sandringham when each of the murders occurred. In his book, 'The Ripper and
the Royals', Melvyn Fairclough makes the claim that Clarence did not die in 1892, but was
secretly secluded at Glamis Castle until the 1930s, and that the Bowes-Lyon family was
rewarded for their assistance by their daughter marrying the future King George VI. This all 
sounds extremely unlikely to me. 
On the other hand, a few eyebrows were raised when, in 1987, it was revealed that two
of the Queen Mother's nieces, Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, who the family had told
'Burke's Peerage' had died in 1940 and 1961 respectively, had not died as stated. Rather, they
had both been incarcerated in the Royal Earlswood Mental Hospital since 1941, where they had
never received a single visit from any member of the Royal family. Katherine lived on until
February 2014 when she died aged 87.
Glamis Castle is not short on ghosts - indeed, according to various legends, it is infested with
them. Some of the better known include :-
* The Grey Lady - believed to be Janet, wife of 6th Lord Glamis, she can be regularly seen 
   praying in the Castle Chapel or walking in the Clock Tower. She was accused of witchcraft 
   and of conspiring to kill the King, James V. On 17 July 1537, she was burned at the stake on 
   Castle Hill in Edinburgh. For further details, see the note under the peerage of Glamis.
* The woman with no tongue - she walks the grounds tearing and gesturing wildly at her
   mutilated face. Who she was in life is unknown.
* A young African boy, formerly a household servant, who haunts the entrance to the Queen's
   Living Chamber, where he likes to trip up sightseers as they enter the room.
* The Ghosts of the Ogilvies - after a skirmish with the Lindsay family, a group of Ogilvies
   sought shelter at Glamis. There they were locked in a room and left to starve to death.
* A woman servant caught drinking the blood of a victim, and who was promptly bricked up in
   a wall. 
Trevor Grant, 4th Baron Strathspey
Lord Strathspey's remedy for rheumatism was described in a number of Australian papers in
1936. This version appeared in the Glen Innes 'Examiner' on 10 September 1936:-
'Lord Strathspey, Trevor Grant of Grant, 16th baronet of a creation of 1625, and 31st chief of
Grant, heir presumptive to the Earldom of Seafield, who was born in New Zealand and lived 
there until he was 34, did prominent national service during the Great War and has subsequently
been associated with public affairs in Sussex, has sprung into the limelight - through a potato!
'There is still a widely-held belief in Sussex that the carrying of a potato will render a person
immune from rheumatism. This theory has supporters both in village and town. One of them is
Lord Strathspey. He has been carrying a potato about with him for years, and although he admits
that the beneficial results may be due to a kind of "optimistic auto-suggestion," he would never
be without one.
'When the correspondent of the Evening Standard recently visited him in his house at 
Rottingdean, he took a potato as large as a pullet's egg from his trousers pocket. "This is about
the size I generally carry," he explained. "If I can only get a big one, I cut it in half. After it has
been used for some weeks, it becomes soft. One might think it was rotten, but it isn't. After that
it becomes so hard it is difficult to cut. It's like iron. Some people keep their potato longer, but I
believe it has lost its healing properties. I throw it away then , but not before I have got a new
one from a garden or a fruit stall or a pantry, wherever I happen to be. I don't like to break the
sequence. I was troubled for a long time with a knee I injured, but since trying this remedy, I 
have not had a twinge. My wife tried it with success, too, but she didn't keep it up because it is
so difficult for a woman, having no pockets, to carry the potato constantly with her."
Gerald Strickland, 1st and only Baron Strickland
Following a spectacular career as Governor of three Australian states, Strickland returned to 
Malta, his country of birth, in 1917. Between 1921-1927, he was leader of the opposition in the
Maltese Legislative Assembly, and, after the 1927 elections in Malta, he became Prime Minister 
from 1927 to 1932 as leader of the Constitutionalist Party. During this period, he also managed to 
be returned for the constituency of Lancaster in the House of Commons in 1924, but had to 
leave the House in 1928 when he raised to the peerage.
During a large period of his premiership, Strickland fought a bitter battle against the Catholic
Church's role in Maltese politics, to the extent the population of Malta was split into two warring
factions - the Church party and the Constitutionalists.  
The dispute arose early in 1929, when Strickland refused to allow a Franciscan priest to be
transferred to Sicily against his will by order of the Superior of the Order in Malta. The Maltese
Government claimed that the transfer had been ordered on political grounds, which led to massive
resentment against the Government being shown by prominent local ecclesiastics, and in 
particular by Michael Gonzi, then Bishop of Gozo, but later Archbishop of Malta. An appeal to the
Vatican led ultimately to the appointment of Mgr. Paschal Robinson [1870-1948], an Irishman, as
Apostolic Delegate to investigate the dispute, but no solution was reached and tension between
the two camps became steadily worse.
On 27 April 1930, shortly before the general election was due to take place, the Bishop of Gozo
issued an order that it would be a mortal sin for Catholics to vote for the Constitutionalist party,
and that its supporters need not bother to try to partake of Easter Communion. Strickland also 
owned the "Malta Daily Chronicle," the reading of which was also declared to be a mortal sin. In a 
pastoral letter dated 1 May 1930, the Archbishop of Malta issued a similar order.
Matters came to a head on 23 May 1930 when an attempt was made to assassinate Lord 
Strickland. The following report appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" of 24 May 1930:-
'A dastardly attempt was made this morning on the life of Lord Strickland, the Premier of Malta.
The assailant, a maimed malcontent named Miller, who is a supporter of the Nationalist party, and
who has been previously involved with the police on several occasions, fired two shots at the 
Premier at point-blank range, but owing to the presence of mind of a police officer the shots were
diverted and the Premier was not hurt. Miller himself was arrested.
'The attempt was made at nine o'clock this morning in the corridors of the Court of Appeal, a few
yards from the hall where appeals are heard. The corridor was densely packed when Lord 
Strickland entered in company with Police Sergeant de Pares to attend a case in which he
appeared as plaintiff, the issue being at attempt by Nationalists to invalidate all laws passed by
the Government.
'Elbowing his way through the crowd Miller approached to about six feet of the Premier, and 
whipped out a revolver. His movements drew the attention of the police sergeant, who with
great presence of mind closed with him, seizing him by the arm and deflecting the first shot.
Four other police3men immediately rushed to the sergeant's assistance, and held Miller tightly. He
managed to pull the trigger twice more, but the two shots went wide, one hitting the wall and
the other the ceiling of the court corridor. In view of the crowd it is nothing short of miraculous
that no one was wounded.
"It is nothing," said Lord Strickland. "I am still alve. If I had been assassinated I should have
appeared before God with a clear conscience."
'On the adjournment of the case the Premier left, unaccompanied by police, and tried to avoid
the crowds, but they surge round him and followed him to the Auberge d'Aragon, his official
residence, raising frantic cheers. News of the outrage spread rapidly and caused considerable
excitement. The Strada Reale filled up as if by magic. Police reinforcements were called in, and
mounted police patrolled the street.
'After staying for about half an hour at the Auberge d'Aragon the Premier motored to the Villa
Bologna, his private residence, to see Lady Strickland. Meanwhile long queues of people of all
classes in the island waited outside the Auberge ro sign their names, and three books were
filled up.
'This afternoon Valetta was still being filled with crowds, whose temper against the assailant was
none too good. One of the former Nationalist Ministers only escaped being man-handled through
the timely intervention of the police.
'Miller, who was interned in a prisoner of war camp for part of the Great War, played a prominent
part in the riots of June 7, 1919, when he was arrested for tearing up a Union Jack. He was 
charged with active participation in the rioting and with inciting Malteses soldiers to side with
the rioters. He is believed to be mentally unbalanced.'
Charles Henry George Howard, 20th Earl of Suffolk and 13th Earl of Berkshire
Howard succeeded to the earldoms in 1917, when his father was killed in Mesopotamia. His
mother, the daughter of an American wheat market buccaneer named Levi Leiter, pushed her
son into the navy as a cadet-midshipman at Dartmouth College. Here he detested the discipline
imposed upon him and, deciding the navy was not for him, at the age of 17 packed his kitbag,
caught the next train to Liverpool, and signed on a windjammer as plain 'Jack Howard.'
The first his mother knew of his defection was when he marched into the ancestral home at
Charlton Park, Wiltshire, wearing a beard and carrying a parrot on his shoulder. His family
pestered him to take up a life more fitting of his title and obtained a commission for him in the
Scots Guards. His former free life as a sailor made it impossible for him to settle as a soldier and
his habit of fraternising with the lower ranks caused the army to request his resignation.
Howard then signed on to a windjammer bound for South Australia. There he signed off, spending
the next six years in the Australian outback as a jackeroo, rouseabout and tramp. Eventually, he
returned to England to take control of his ancestral 10,000 acres and, in 1934, married a 
Chicago-born ballet dancer, Mimi Crawford. Although he was young and rich enough to live a 
life of leisure, Howard chose hard work. Enrolling at Edinburgh University, he graduated in 1937
with a first class honours degree in chemistry.
Periodic attacks of rheumatism prevented Howard from joining up at the outbreak of WW2. 
Instead, he went to Paris as liaison officer between the British and French Ministries of Supply.
Here, speaking fluent gutter-French as well as five other languages, Howard proved a winner
at overcoming the distrust of French scientists. He also indulged his love for flamboyant clothes,
dressing like a comic-book spy in a long trenchcoat, broad-brimmed hat and wearing his two
favourite pistols, Oscar and Genevieve, together with a fierce black beard.
In June 1940, Howard called at the French Armament Ministry and found them preparing to 
evacuate. Panic-stricken officials advised him to leave for England post-haste. Before he
left, Howard gathered ammunition for the desperate struggle he guessed England was about
to make. Diamonds, especially industrial diamonds, were needed and a large number were to be
found in Paris. Howard toured Paris banks pleading for their managers to surrender their
diamond stocks to England. Some agreed, whilst others had to be persuaded by Oscar and
Genevieve. Together with his secretary, Eileen Morden, Howard left Paris in an open car piled
with diamonds and rare chemicals. Using his pistols, he cleared a path through roads choked 
with refugees, reaching Bordeaux in four days. After three days vainly trying to find a ship,
a British collier, the 'Broompart' entered the harbour. Howard threw his plunder aboard and then
raged through the town calling for French refugee scientists to volunteer for service in England.
Some went willingly, others at pistol-point. His last move was to secrete some lorry loads of
machine tools in an isolated cove along the coast, which were later picked up by a British
Howard then volunteered to form a unit to defuse faulty enemy bombs. He gave himself the
title of 'Director of Field Research' and gathered around him a staff which shocked staid
government officials. There was not an officer or a gentleman amongst them. Some were
illiterate, but all had the extreme courage needed in bomb disposal. Howard's men worked
night and day rendering unexploded bombs harmless or removing them to the countryside
for investigation.
After each nerve-racking job, Howard liked to take his men to London's swanky Kempinski's
restaurant for a meal. Patrons sniffed at the dirty mob that poured in, but the sniffing soon
ceased when the other diners were told that the dirtiest of all was the Earl of Suffolk.
Finally, in May 1941, Howard undertook to defuse 'Old Faithful', a big bomb that had been 
dug out of an East End slum and left awaiting treatment for months. Unfortunately for
Howard, he had met his match - the bomb exploded, killing Howard, his secretary Eileen
Morden and six others. Ten soldiers working nearby were seriously injured and windows were
smashed within a 500-yard radius. Very little remained of Jack Howard for burial in the family
vault at Charlton Park. On 18 July 1941, Howard was posthumously awarded the George Cross,
Britain's highest civilian decoration for bravery and the civilian equivalent of the Victoria Cross.
The special remainder to the Barony of Sunderlin created in 1797
From the "London Gazette" of 11 November 1797 (issue 14064, page 1081):-
'His Majesty's Royal Letters being received, granting the following Dignities, Letters Patent are
preparing to be passed under the Great Seal of this Kingdom accordingly [including] to Richard,
Lord Sunderlin, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, the Dignity of Baron Sunderlin,
of Baronstown, in the County of Westmeath; and in Default of such Issue, to his Brother Edmond
Malone, of Shingles in the County of Westmeath aforesaid, Esq; and the Heirs Male of his Body
lawfully begotten.'
Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex
Augustus Frederick was the sixth son of King George III of England. Like his brothers, Augustus
flouted his father by falling in love with a commoner, secretly marrying her and then later casting
her aside.
Born at Buckingham Place, he spent most of his early years in Germany and Italy in the company
of dull German tutors, but in November 1792, after arriving in Rome to spend the winter, he fell
in love with Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of the 4th Earl of Dunmore. She has been described
as a headstrong and ambitious woman, with an imperious beauty and a reckless love of pleasure.
It was little wonder that Augustus, fresh from the constrictions of Gottingen University, became
fascinated by her charms and, within a month, was demonstrating his undisguised devotion.
Lady Augusta was both flattered and alarmed. She knew that, under the Royal Marriages Act,
it was illegal for any member of the royal family to marry without the King's consent until they
were 25. Augustus begged her to marry him secretly, swearing solemnly that he would 
acknowledge her as his legal wife as soon as reached 25. Finally, on 21 March 1793, Augustus
wrote out a solemn declaration that he would have no other wife but Lady Augusta, adding,
'May God forget me, if I forget thee!'
Moved by this appeal, Lady Augusta at last surrendered and agreed to a secret wedding. The
prince suggested hunting for an American parson or an 'Armenian patriarch' to perform the
ceremony, but he was dubious about the legality of such a marriage, especially on foreign soil.
Eventually, Augustus found an English clergyman living in Rome, the Rev. Mr Gunn, who was
willing to perform the ceremony, which he did on the morning of 4 April 1793. There were no
witnesses and the marriage was not registered. Even the bride's mother, the Countess of
Dunmore was not told until five months later, when it was made necessary by Augusta's
Rumour of the marriage soon reached Buckingham Palace and George III ordered Augustus 
to return home. Lady Augusta followed him and set up house in Berkeley Square, where
Augustus frequently visited her, causing the court and society to believe that she was the
Prince's mistress. Augustus was, at that time, still an honourable man; he had doubts
about the legality of the Rome marriage and, with a baby fast approaching, he determined to
through a second secret marriage ceremony, this time on English soil. 
On 5 December 1793, they were remarried at St. George's Church, Hanover Square. In order
to establish his residential qualifications, Augustus had taken lodgings with the proprietor of
a coal store. This wedding was witnessed by the Countess of Dunmore and the coal merchant
and his wife. Immediately after the ceremony, Augusta retired to Essex to await the birth of her
baby, a son, which occurred on 13 January 1794.
When he discovered what had happened, George III was furious. A writ was issued to have both
marriages declared null and void under the Royal Marriage Act. Augustus was ordered to 
Germany, and, although he complained that his father's action was 'barbarous, inhumane and
despotick', he went nevertheless. As soon as she had recovered from giving birth, Augusta joined
him in Berlin, where, for the next four years, they lived happily and had another child, a daughter.
When, in 1798, Augustus reached the age of 25, it became obvious that he was in no hurry to
fulfil his earlier pledge and soon the romance was dying. In 1801 Augustus was created Duke of
Sussex and Augusta, who insisted on calling herself Duchess of Sussex, finally separated from
the prince. She was granted an annual pension of £4,000 and retired to a villa at Ramsgate.
Because she was not allowed to call herself Duchess of Sussex, she styled herself as the
Countess d'Armeland and her children assumed the name of d'Este. She lived on until 5 March
Sussex at least had the decency to wait for Augusta's death before he went through another
marriage on 2 May 1831, again in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act, to Lady Cecilia 
Letitia Underwood, daughter of the 2nd Earl of Arran and widow of a Norfolk squire, Sir George
Buggin. She was created Duchess of Inverness in 1840.
During his remaining years, the Duke of Sussex exasperated his royal brothers and the 
establishment by supporting a number of radical causes, including the Reform Bill and the 
abolition of slavery; he also supported Queen Caroline against her estranged husband, George
IV. At his death in 1843, he was by his own request buried in the public cemetery at Kensal 
What of the two children born to Augusta? The son, Augustus d'Este was sent into the Army in 
1809 and was knighted in 1830. Following the death of his father, he tried to claim the Dukedom
of Sussex but his claim was rejected by the Committee of Privileges in July 1844 on the grounds
that the marriages of his parents were illegal.  For further information on this claim, see the 
following note. As an interesting sidelight, it is claimed that Augustus d'Este is the first person
for whom a definite diagnosis of multiple sclerosis can be made, based on the entries in his
diaries. He died unmarried on 18 December 1848, aged 54. Augusta's daughter, Augusta Emma 
d'Este, married Thomas Wilde, later first Baron Truro, in 1845 and died 21 May 1866, aged 64.
The Sussex Peerage claim of 1844
After his father's death in 1843, his son, Augustus d'Este laid claim to the peerages. The 
following edited article on this claim is from 'Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper' of 26 
May 1844:-
'On Thursday [23 May 1844] the case of Augustus Frederick d'Este, on his claim to the
Dukedom of Sussex, the Earldom of Inverness, and the Barony of Arklow, came before the
Committee for Privileges, in the House of Lords. As very much interest will naturally be felt
in this remarkable and extraordinary peerage claim, the following abstract of the case, and
of the arguments upon which Sir Augustus d'Este's claim is founded, cannot but prove welcome.
The claimant first sets forth his pedigree as the son of the late Duke of Sussex and Lady
Augusta Murray, and then recites the letters patent of the 27th of November, 42nd George III
[i.e.1801], by which his Royal Highness Prince Augustus Frederick was created Baron of Arklow,
Earl of Inverness and Duke of Sussex, with a limitation to the heirs male of his body; and adds,
that he (the claimant) is the only male issue of the marriage celebrated at Rome, A.D. 1793,
between the said late Royal Highness and Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of the Earl of 
Dunmore. The marriage took place without previous communication with George III, and with
the strictest secrecy; but the fact soon became known. "The king (to use the language of
the claimant's case) was displeased at the event, and from the time it came to his knowledge,
every endeavour was made to cause a separation of the prince from his wife. This was
accomplished, in the first instance, by his royal highness being immediately sent abroad, and
after several short periods of residence together, the desired object of a permanent separation
was attained in the year 1806, the claimant and a daughter being the only children of the
'On the death of his royal parent, the claimant presented his petition to her Majesty, claiming
the dignities of Baron of Arklow, Earl of Inverness and the Duke of Sussex, which petition was
referred to the consideration of the Attorney-General, who, having heard the evidence in
support of its allegations, made his report in August, 1843. From that report it appears that the
fact of a marriage between the late Duke of Sussex and the claimant's mother having been
celebrated at Rome, was proved; but with the view of establishing the lawfulness of that
marriage, and of showing that its validity was not affected by the provisions of the Royal
Marriage Act, 12 George III, c. 11, a statement of the circumstances under which the marriage
took place is relied on by the claimant.
'Three principal questions will arise for their lordships' consideration - "First, the question of fact
as to the marriage, upon which he [the claimant] relies, as having been contracted at Rome;
secondly, the legality of that marriage. And upon these two points the claimant presumes to 
hope that little difficulty will be found in the way of [the Committee's] conclusion in his favour.
The third question will be, whether a marriage contracted by a descendant of his late Majesty
George II, out of her Majesty's dominions, and legal in all other respects, is rendered invalid by
the operation of the Royal Marriages Act. Whatever impression may be received from the first
view of the question, the claimant confidently anticipates that a due investigation of the
general principles of international law and of local legislation will in its result abundantly satisfy
your lordships that that statute does not invalidate the marriage upon which he relies, or defeat
his claim, as the legitimate offspring of that marriage, to succeed to the honours of his royal
parent." '
The claimant's confidence was, unfortunately for him, misplaced. In its judgment, delivered in
July 1844, the Committee for Privileges found that the wording of the Royal Marriages Act was
'precise and unambiguous' and that the Act's intent was 'clear and unmistakeable.' The
Committee found that the Act was binding upon a British subject, whether inside or outside
of the realm, and that, as a result, a son to a marriage contracted in defiance of the Act was
not entitled to recover his father's lands or dignities, and consequently the claim to the 
peerages could not be sustained.
George Granville Leveson-Gower,2nd Marquess of Stafford and 1st Duke of Sutherland
and his role in "The Highland Clearances"
The "Highland Clearances" remain a controversial period in Scottish history, when thousands of
crofters were forcibly removed from their homes so as to allow large scale sheep farming. Some
commentators have expressed the view that the Clearances amounted to an early form of "ethnic
cleansing." The following article appeared in the October 1970 issue of the Australian monthly 
magazine "Parade." For full-length books on the subject, I recommend "The Highland Clearances" 
by John Prebble (Martin Secker and Warburg 1963) and "Patrick Sellar and the Highland 
Clearances" by Eric Richards (Edinburgh University Press 1999). It should also be noted that the
Duke's surname of Leveson-Gower is pronounced "Loosen-Gore."
'In June 1814 two companies of the 21st Regiment of Foot marched into Strath Naver, one of the
long glens winding through the bleak, heather-clad mountains of northern Scotland. When the
redcoats left a month later 300 cottages were blackened ruins and nearly 1500 men, women and
children had been driven destitute into the hills. The memory of the "burning of Strath Naver"
was to linger long and bitterly among the Highlanders evicted from their ancestral glen in those
weeks of horror. Men told how 90-year-old Margaret Chisholm was carried dying from her blazing
hut while the landlord's agent shouted: "Damn the old witch. She has lived long enough. Let her
burn!" And how old Donald Mackay, mortally stricken with cancer, crawled for refuge to a 
deserted mill and lived for a week by licking flour meal off the floor while his dog kept the rats 
from him. Others died from cold and exhaustion in the mountains or on the terrible trek to the
coast where emigrant ships waited to take the survivors to Canada and New South Wales.
'The tragedy of Strath Naver was one of many similar scenes enacted all over the Highlands 
during the great "clearances" of the early 19th century. The evictions went on for 40 years as
landowners and clan chiefs ousted their ancient small tenantry to make way for vastly more
profitable sheep-farming enterprises. Throughout the Highlands the glens were depopulated, the
traditional clan system was broken up and only grass-grown ruins marked the homes of thousands
driven into exile. 
'No other landlord equalled in greed or ruthlessness that "leviathan of wealth" George Granville
Leveson-Gower, Marquess of Stafford and Duke of Sutherland. He was responsible for uprooting
10,000 people from the 2400-square-mile estate that covered almost the whole of the northern
extremity of Scotland from the Atlantic to the North Sea. To Leveson-Gower the Highlanders 
were mere savages, picturesque relics of Scotland's barbaric past who had to be swept away to
make room for modern farming methods. Most other big landlords shared his views. But none put
them into practice on such a gigantic scale and with such terror of fire and bloodshed as the
Duke of Sutherland. 
'The son of the first Marquess of Stafford, George Leveson-Gower was born in 1758, into one of
the richest families in Britain. He was a delicate child and by the time he reached adulthood was
described as "a bilious creature" with a hawk nose, pallid face and short-sighted eyes blinking
through thick spectacles. After he had made the customary Grand Tour of Europe his parents
looked about for a suitable bride but, despite his vast expectations, he did not appear a partic-
ularly attractive husband. He was 27 before a wife was found in the person of Elizabeth, 
Countess of Sutherland in her own right, who possessed by far the largest (and also one of the
least profitable) estates in Scotland.
'For 600 years the Earls of Sutherland had been lairds of the great northern expanse of mountain,
glen and loch populated by the most isolated and primitive Highland clans. Only small and 
uncertain rents reached Dunrobin Castle from the Mackays, Macbeths, Gunns, Mathesons and
other ancient tenant families of Sutherlandshire. When Elizabeth succeeded her father, the last
earl, the clansmen still lived as they had for centuries in a land without roads and only the 
smallest vestiges of civilisation. The villages were handfuls of thatched stone huts in which 
humans, pigs and poultry lived under a single roof. Around them were potato patches and tiny
cornfields. Black cattle grazed on the slopes of the glens, their ownership often fiercely disputed
in blood feuds that lasted for generations.
'For 20 years after their marriage the countess and her husband scarcely saw their Highland
kingdom except for an occasional visit to the gloomy old castle of Dunrobin. In 1803 Leveson-
Gower became Marquess of Stafford on his father's death and in the same year inherited the 
huge estates of his maternal uncle, the last Duke of Bridgewater. Within six months he found
himself the greatest landlord in the British Isles, with a million acres, a rent roll of £300,000 a
year and tenants numbered by tens of thousands. Bridgewater House contained London's finest
private art collection and he had also acquired all the duke's enormous interests in canals and
coal mines. "The golden marquess," his contemporaries called him. But a life of mere luxurious
idleness was not enough for the Marquess of Stafford. He had great possessions and he meant
them to earn every penny that could be extracted from them. Above all he intended to make his 
wife's unprofitable heritage pay its way. 
'The process of destroying the old clan life of the Highlands by evictions and enforced emigration
was not new. For 20 years Scottish landlords had been ousting their tenants, pulling down their
cottages and letting the glens as sheep runs at rents no small farmer could possibly pay. "The
sheep came and the lairds built their fine houses in Edinburgh and London with nae a thought for
the puir folk drove out from their native soil," one Scots bard lamented. Occasionally the 
landlords' factors met resistance but usually the appearance of a few soldiers was enough to
overawe the clansmen into leaving their homes.
'It was 1808 when Stafford arrived at Dunrobin to organise the first clearances in that part of
his estate and around Loch Assynt in the remote south-western corner. For four years he
encountered little trouble and about 3000 tenants were herded from their glens into villages on
the coast, where they could either become fishermen or emigrate. The picture grew grimmer 
when Patrick Sellar, a hard-headed Edinburgh lawyer-turned-land-agent, was employed to speed
up the evictions. [Sellar (1780-1851) was the father of Alexander Craig Sellar, MP for Haddington
1882-1885 and Partick 1885-1890].
'About 20 miles north of Dunrobin was the long, green valley of Kildonan where generations of
Gunns and Mathesons had fought and stolen each other's cattle completely isolated from the
outside world. Late in 1812 Stafford let out the whole glen as a sheep run. The clansmen refused
to move. In March of the next year Sellar and his band of hirelings arrived to evict them. A 
screaming horde of men, women and children barred the track into the first village, drove the
intruders off with stones and chased them for 10 miles over the hills. Wild rumours swept the
countryside that the clansmen were marching to burn Dunrobin Castle and hang the Marquess 
and Sellar over the ashes. A messenger galloped off to Fort George to seek military aid and two
days later the "Kildonan rebellion," with its threats of blood and fire, had utterly collapsed. 
Protected by the redcoats' bayonets, Sellar and his men tore down every cottage in Kildonan,
killed or scattered the livestock and drove the terrorised inhabitants down to the coast at
Helmsdale. Hundreds of the clansmen later emigrated to Canada. The rest eked out a miserable
living on the tiny plots granted them by the Marquess of Stafford. Sheep replaced men in the 
glen of Kildonan. 
'However it was the two massive clearances of Strath Naver in 1814 and 1819 that made the 
names of Stafford and his agents accursed throughout the Scottish Highlands. The first blow fell
on the Clan Mackay, which occupied the lower end of the valley, where Patrick Sellar had 
acquired thousands of acres on lease from his master to run sheep. As was expected the tenants
tore up their eviction notices and prepared to resist. This time, however, Sellar was taking no
chances. He knew that in June most of the men would be away driving their cattle to summer 
pastures in the hills, leaving only the women, children and aged in the villages. Stafford's 
influence provided military support and two companies of the 21st Regiment, with several pieces
of artillery, marched into Strath Naver. 
'The month of horror began on June 14 as Sellar's thugs and redcoats moved systematically along
the valley, burning and tearing down one village after another. Those who refused to quit their
poor cottages had the thatch fired above their heads or were dragged out and beaten with 
musket butts without regard for sex or age. When Sellar was asked to show mercy to the old 
and sick he shouted: "Devil a one shall remain. If they will not quit then let them burn!" How 
many died from maltreatment, or from hunger, exposure or sheer terror could never be 
discovered. But when the men returned from the hills they found Strath Naver a scene of 
desolation, their homes in blackened rubble and their families scattered like animals in the 
'So great was the wave of public horror, when news of the tragedy leaked out, that the Sheriff
of Sutherlandshire insisted on arresting Sellar and charging him with gross cruelty, arson and
culpable homicide. It took all the ingenuity of Stafford's lawyers to save him and Sellar's acquittal
at the Inverness Assizes touched off an explosion that staggered even the "golden marquess."
For several years Stafford dared not show his face at Dunrobin. Sellar retired from his service.
But the ruthless work of eviction went on. 
'In 1819 the rest of Strath Naver was cleared under redcoat guard and 3000 more clansmen were
burned out of their homes and driven to the coast to emigrate or starve. For weeks the night-
mare trek went on. Typhus raged among the victims. The dead were simply left in the heather.
The sick were carried in blankets borne by the sturdiest survivors. The glens of Loch Shin, Strath
More and Strath Halladale all told the same grim stories of hopeless resistance, brutality and
'By 1830 it was calculated that at least 10,000 tenants had been evicted from the Marquess of
Stafford's Scottish estates and that 200,000 sheep were grazing in their place. Meanwhile James
Loch, Stafford's new chief agent, boasted that hundreds of miles of road and scores of bridges
had brought civilisation to the savage Highlands. Stafford himself suffered no qualms of 
conscience. His sole remaining ambition was to become a duke and join his wife's ancient title of
Sutherland with his own. He begged and intrigued, he lavished his wealth on sumptuous 
entertaining, he curried favour with two successive monarchs, George IV and William IV. At last 
in January 1833, his wish was granted and he was created Duke of Sutherland. Six months later, 
on July 19, he died at Dunrobin Castle. What was left of his tenantry lined the funeral route to 
Dornoch cathedral. Then his agents began racking the clansmen for funds to erect a giant statue
of the duke overlooking one of the glens he had depopulated.'
Mary, Duchess of Sutherland (second wife of the 3rd Duke)
By all accounts the Duchess was a grasping gold-digger whose aim appears to have been to
gain control of the Duke's huge fortune to the exclusion of the Duke's children. The following
two paragraphs are summarised from Brian Masters' fascinating book, "The Dukes" [Blond & 
Briggs 1975].
The future Duchess, then known as Mrs. Blair, had already wormed her way into the Duke's
affections while his first wife was still alive. When the first Duchess died in November 1888,
it did not take long before Mrs. Blair became the Duke's second wife, for they were married
in March 1889, less than 4 months later. She immediately alienated her stepchildren by
ignoring the terms of the first Duchess's will which left her wardrobe to her daughter - instead 
the new Duchess appropriated her predecessor's clothes. Next she forced her stepson, the
Marquess of Stafford and his wife out of their residence and confiscated all of their furniture.
Meanwhile she persuaded the Duke to commence legal action to disentail a portion of the vast
Sutherland estates in her favour. Soon the Duke and his son were mortal enemies.
Shortly before the Duke died in 1892, she drafted an amended will for her husband, which left
her everything that he possibly could, apart from those items which were considered heirlooms
and which could not be alienated from his heir. When the Duke died in September 1892, she
attempted to gain possession of one of the late Duke's houses, but was prevented from
doing so when the new Duke installed additional caretakers to deny her access. For the next
two years, the will was disputed in the Courts, on the basis that it had been made under undue
influence and fraud. 
In April 1893, while the litigation was proceeding, the Duchess was sentenced to prison for
six weeks for contempt of court, as can be seen from the following report which appeared 
in the "Belfast News-Letter" of 19 Apr 1893:-
'In the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice to-day Mr. Justice Jeune had before him a
motion to commit the Dowager Duchess of Sutherland for alleged contempt of court, consisting
of having burnt a letter or letters pertaining to the present litigation about the late duke's will.
On Wednesday last an order was made that certain documents should be inspected in the 
presence of the duke, the dowager duchess, and their advisers, and the present case was that
the dowager duchess during the inspection concealed a bundle of papers, which at first she
said were letters from her to the duke, but afterwards swore were from the duke to her, and
threw them on the fire, where they were destroyed. Mr Finlay, Q.C., for the dowager duchess,
read a long affidavit, in the course of which she said the letter was a personal one, and affected
persons other than herself, some of whom were dead, though some were living. She offered the
fullest apology to the Court for an act which she now greatly regretted, and offered so far as
lay in her power to disclose the contents of the letter which she had destroyed. The learned
counsel said there was not the slightest intention on the part of the lady to justify her conduct.
Sir Henry James, on behalf of the duke, submitted that this was so serious a contempt of
court that a mere apology was not sufficient. Further, he submitted that the lady could not be
trusted to disclose the contents of the document. Mr. Justice Jeune, in giving judgment, said
that it appeared to him that the scheme of destroying the documents was deliberately planned
beforehand by the duchess, and that the previous application was made in order that she might
have the opportunity of doing that which she afterwards did. The injury done to the justice of
the pending suit was irreparable, and could not be satisfied by an apology. It might be that a
piece of evidence vital to her opponent's case had been destroyed, or it might be that under
the circumstances the inference drawn would tell overwhelmingly against herself. The position
of the plaintiff was wholly immaterial. Justice must be done in this case as in any other. The
order of the Court would be that the Dowager Duchess of Sutherland must pay a fine of   
£250, the costs of the action, and be committed to prison for a term of six weeks.'
The Dowager Duchess was remarried, in November 1896, to Sir Albert Kaye Rollit, MP for 
Islington South 1886-1906. She was again in the headlines in the last quarter of 1898, after
she was robbed of £30,000 worth of jewels while visiting Paris. At the subsequent trial of
the two men arrested for the robbery, the Dowager Duchess said that "she visited Paris on
October 9 [1898], accompanied by her brother and his wife, her maid Perkins, and her footman.
She was afterwards joined at the hotel by her husband, Sir Albert Rollit. She had a large
despatch-box, fastened by straps, with a plain cover. It was her custom to keep her jewellery
in this case. In addition to her own jewelry she had a ring and a stone to show to a jeweller in
Paris for an opinion. The stone was an emerald and it was unset, and the ring was a large
emerald, set in diamonds. She stayed at an hotel in Paris until the morning of October 17. On
that day she prepared to return to London. With the assistance of her maid, she packed the 
greater part of her jewels in the despatch-box, which was very full. The maid locked it, and
witness kept the key. She last saw the case on the table in her room before leaving the hotel,
and she gave her maid instructions to take it to the railway station and await her arrival. She
afterwards drove to the station by herself, and was joined there by Sir Albert Rollit and her 
brother, to return to London. She found a train at the platform, and her maid was sitting or 
standing in a first-class compartment with the jewel-case on one of the seats. It was a 
corridor-carriage, but at that time she did not know that. The case was on the seat on the
same side as the corridor, looking towards the engine. At that time there was no other person
in the carriage. The maid went off to find her own luggage, leaving the despatch-box on the 
seat in witness's sight. Witness got into the department and sat down for two minutes, but
then got outside to let her friends see where she was…….Sir Albert Rollit came onto the
platform, and I went a few steps to meet him. We both got into the carriage, no other person
being within the compartment…..the train started, and at that time I had not missed anything.
A few minutes afterwards I missed my purse……As soon as I realized that thief had been in the
compartment I looked for the despatch-box and missed it….. [edited account from "The Times"
of 15 December 1898].
The two men charged with the theft were William Johnson (alias "Harry the Valet") and Moss
Lipman. At their subsequent trial in early January 1899, Johnson pleaded guilty and was given
a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment. He declined, however, to state the whereabouts of the
stolen jewels, presumably hoping to obtain them upon his release, but I can find no further 
reference to them. 
Copyright © 2020