Lord Lambton (Earl of Durham)'s will

[Shinjinee]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_page_id=1772&in_article_id=440786&in_author_id=230

Lord Lambton (disclaimed Earl of Durham) left his entire estate (worth
£12 million) to his only son 45-year-old Ned Lambton, aka 7th Earl of
Durham (b 19 October 1961), former husband of Christabel (now second
wife of musician Jools Holland) and (possibly former husband of
another wife Catherine (nee Fitzgerald), daughter of Sir Desmond
Fitzgerald, Knight of Glin and his 2nd wife.
The new Earl has a son Frederick, now styled Viscount Lambton (b 1985)
by his first wife Christabel; in his younger (salad) days, he was
apparently lead singer of the pop group The Frozen Turkeys.

His 17th-century Tuscan farmhouse also goes to the new earl, and not
his long-term partner Mrs Claire Ward (mother of three children,
including actress Rachel Ward and the Marchioness of Worcester) as had
been reported earlier. This per Richard Kay's column in the Daily
Mail.

Interestingly
1. Lord Lambton ignored 63-year-old writer Lucinda and her four
sisters in his will. The youngest daughter/sister Lady Isabella is
married to wealthy land-owner Sir Philip (or David?) Naylor-Leyland,
stepgrandson of the last Earl Fitzwilliam (who left his land to his
wife, Sir Philips' grandmother who left it to her grandson).

2. Claire Ward and her children are presumably not mentioned in the
will either.

Of course, all these persons are not exactly wanting for cash, AFAIK.

In 2003, Nigel Dempster in the Daily Mail (6 June 2003) had claimed
that young 18-year-old Freddy was engaged to 19-year-old Rose
Hanbury, but this engagement appears to not have taken place or
quietly have petered out.

Shinjinee

Sources

Richard Kay column for 7 March 2007 in the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_page_id=1772&in_article_id=440786&in_author_id=230

Ned Lambton entry in Wikipedia (not exactly a great source, but a
start)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lambton,_7th_Earl_of_Durham

King James VI & I Descendant News, 2003
http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/j12003.html

Lady Lucinda Lambton bio
http://www.tv.com/lucinda-lambton/person/142983/biography.html

[marquess]

Well as you said, the girls arent' short of money, and neither is his
partner, her daughter is the Marchioness of Worcester. All the family
wealth should go to the heir. To many landed famlies lose out when the
land and the house goes to a daughter, instead of the next heir,
Charlotte Monckton is one of the worse examples, the current viscounts
Galaway don't own an acre, and land that has been in the family for
hundreds of years is now out of it. So all power to the new earl and
respects to his late father for doing the right thing!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists....
Lord Lambton (disclaimed Earl of Durham) left his entire estate (worth
£12 million) to his only son 45-year-old Ned Lambton, aka 7th Earl of
Durham (b 19 October 1961), former husband of Christabel (now second
wife of musician Jools Holland) and (possibly former husband of
another wife Catherine (nee Fitzgerald), daughter of Sir Desmond
Fitzgerald, Knight of Glin and his 2nd wife.
The new Earl has a son Frederick, now styled Viscount Lambton (b 1985)
by his first wife Christabel; in his younger (salad) days, he was
apparently lead singer of the pop group The Frozen Turkeys.
His 17th-century Tuscan farmhouse also goes to the new earl, and not
his long-term partner Mrs Claire Ward (mother of three children,
including actress Rachel Ward and the Marchioness of Worcester) as had
been reported earlier. This per Richard Kay's column in the Daily
Mail.
Interestingly
1. Lord Lambton ignored 63-year-old writer Lucinda and her four
sisters in his will. The youngest daughter/sister Lady Isabella is
married to wealthy land-owner Sir Philip (or David?) Naylor-Leyland,
stepgrandson of the last Earl Fitzwilliam (who left his land to his
wife, Sir Philips' grandmother who left it to her grandson).
2. Claire Ward and her children are presumably not mentioned in the
will either.
Of course, all these persons are not exactly wanting for cash, AFAIK.
In 2003, Nigel Dempster in the Daily Mail (6 June 2003) had claimed
that young 18-year-old Freddy was engaged to 19-year-old Rose
Hanbury, but this engagement appears to not have taken place or
quietly have petered out.
Shinjinee
Sources
Richard Kay column for 7 March 2007 in the Daily Mailhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists....
Ned Lambton entry in Wikipedia (not exactly a great source, but a
start)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lambton,_7th_Earl_of_Durham
King James VI & I Descendant News, 2003http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/j12003.html
Lady Lucinda Lambton biohttp://www.tv.com/lucinda-lambton/person/142983/biography.html

[g***@virgin.net]

Post by marquess
Well as you said, the girls arent' short of money, and neither is his
partner, her daughter is the Marchioness of Worcester. All the family
wealth should go to the heir. To many landed famlies lose out when the
land and the house goes to a daughter, instead of the next heir,
Charlotte Monckton is one of the worse examples, the current viscounts
Galaway don't own an acre, and land that has been in the family for
hundreds of years is now out of it. So all power to the new earl and
respects to his late father for doing the right thing!

So I take it you have no sympathy for the Bennett daughters
in 'Pride and Prejudice', disinherited by a family settlement?

[marquess]

If there is or was no primogeniture then, there would have been no
family estate in the first place. Provision should be made for
daughters, when and if necessary, but the bulk of a landed estate
should go to the eldest son. Otherwise after a couple of generations
there won't be one. Even should the peer, be succeeded by a cousin, of
nephew! After all had his father left everything to his daughters,
then what estate would he himself have to pass on?

Post by g***@virgin.net

Post by marquess
partner, her daughter is the Marchioness of Worcester. All the family
wealth should go to the heir. To many landed famlies lose out when the
land and the house goes to a daughter, instead of the next heir,
Charlotte Monckton is one of the worse examples, the current viscounts
Galaway don't own an acre, and land that has been in the family for
hundreds of years is now out of it. So all power to the new earl and
respects to his late father for doing the right thing!

So I take it you have no sympathy for the Bennett daughters
in 'Pride and Prejudice', disinherited by a family settlement?

[Candide]

Post by g***@virgin.net

Post by marquess
Well as you said, the girls arent' short of money, and neither is his
partner, her daughter is the Marchioness of Worcester. All the family
wealth should go to the heir. To many landed famlies lose out when the
land and the house goes to a daughter, instead of the next heir,
Charlotte Monckton is one of the worse examples, the current

viscounts

Post by g***@virgin.net

Post by marquess
Galaway don't own an acre, and land that has been in the family for
hundreds of years is now out of it. So all power to the new earl and
respects to his late father for doing the right thing!

So I take it you have no sympathy for the Bennett daughters
in 'Pride and Prejudice', disinherited by a family settlement?

The Misses Bennett weren't "disinherited" as there was never any
expectation they would come into anything as their father's estate was
entailed, as was the custom then via primogeniture. Mrs. Bennet's
seemingly endless and some may consider mercenary preoccupation with
finding husbands for her daughters was one many a real life noble mother
of daughters from a family with little or no money for dowries would
have recognised and understood. Absent finding a husband, the Bennett
girls would have joined the ranks of governesses, paid companions, and
perhaps school teachers.

[Graham Truesdale]

Post by Candide

Post by g***@virgin.net

Post by marquess
Well as you said, the girls arent' short of money, and neither is his
partner, her daughter is the Marchioness of Worcester. All the family
wealth should go to the heir. To many landed famlies lose out when the
land and the house goes to a daughter, instead of the next heir,
Charlotte Monckton is one of the worse examples, the current viscounts
Galaway don't own an acre, and land that has been in the family for
hundreds of years is now out of it. So all power to the new earl and
respects to his late father for doing the right thing!

So I take it you have no sympathy for the Bennett daughters
in 'Pride and Prejudice', disinherited by a family settlement?

The Misses Bennett weren't "disinherited" as there was never any
expectation they would come into anything as their father's estate was
entailed, as was the custom then via primogeniture. Mrs. Bennet's
seemingly endless and some may consider mercenary preoccupation with
finding husbands for her daughters was one many a real life noble mother
of daughters from a family with little or no money for dowries would
have recognised and understood. Absent finding a husband, the Bennett
girls would have joined the ranks of governesses, paid companions, and
perhaps school teachers.

Though an entail of the 'tail general' variety could pass to daughters.
If their father had happened to hold a Barony by writ, the family
settlement might well have allowed the estate to pass to one or more
daughters in the absence of a son.

[Candide]

Post by Graham Truesdale

Post by Candide

Post by g***@virgin.net

Post by marquess
Well as you said, the girls arent' short of money, and neither is his
partner, her daughter is the Marchioness of Worcester. All the family
wealth should go to the heir. To many landed famlies lose out when the
land and the house goes to a daughter, instead of the next heir,
Charlotte Monckton is one of the worse examples, the current viscounts
Galaway don't own an acre, and land that has been in the family for
hundreds of years is now out of it. So all power to the new earl and
respects to his late father for doing the right thing!

So I take it you have no sympathy for the Bennett daughters
in 'Pride and Prejudice', disinherited by a family settlement?

The Misses Bennett weren't "disinherited" as there was never any
expectation they would come into anything as their father's estate was
entailed, as was the custom then via primogeniture. Mrs. Bennet's
seemingly endless and some may consider mercenary preoccupation with
finding husbands for her daughters was one many a real life noble mother
of daughters from a family with little or no money for dowries would
have recognised and understood. Absent finding a husband, the Bennett
girls would have joined the ranks of governesses, paid companions, and
perhaps school teachers.

Though an entail of the 'tail general' variety could pass to

daughters.

Post by Graham Truesdale
If their father had happened to hold a Barony by writ, the family
settlement might well have allowed the estate to pass to one or more
daughters in the absence of a son.
--

True, but that was not the case, perhaps because of the rarity of such a
situation. Indeed the only literary example one can think of in which
daughters were favoured over sons, including the heir would have been
Brideshead Revisited; where Lord Marchmain basically gave the whole bag
of tricks to his eldest daughter. Of course the old man was predicting
Julia and Charles would have married and produced children. IIRC the
Marchmain family had a Barony by writ, as explained above. On his
deathbed LM speaks of how the "larger honours" will go with him (unless
Brideshead and or Sebastian had sons), but the barony would pass to
Julia and her children.

Candide