BARONETAGE
Last updated 07/11/2017 (17 Jan 2025)
Date	Type	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
Names of baronets shown in blue have not yet been placed on the Official Roll of the Baronetage.
Dates in italics in the "Born" column indicate that the baronet was baptised on that date; dates in italics in the "Died" column indicate that the baronet was buried on that date.
VALCKENBURG of Middleing, Yorks
20 Jul 1642	E	1	Matthew Valckenburg		4 Apr 1644
1644 to     Aug 1679		2	John Anthony van Valckenburg Extinct on his death		1 Sep 1679
VANACKER of London
31 Jan 1701	E		See "Sambrooke"
VAN COLSTER of Amsterdam, Holland
28 Feb 1645 to     c Apr 1665	E	1	Joseph van Colster Extinct on his death		c Apr 1665
VANDEN-BEMPDE-JOHNSTONE of Hackness Hall, Yorks
6 Jul 1795	GB	1	Richard Vanden-Bempde-Johnstone For details of the special remainder included in the creation of this baronetcy, see the note at the foot of this page MP for Weymouth & Melcombe Regis 1790‑1796	21 Sep 1732	14 Jul 1807	74
14 Jul 1807		2	John Vanden-Bempde-Johnstone MP for Yorkshire 1830‑1832 and Scarborough 1832‑1837 and 1841‑1869 For further information on the death of this MP, see the note at the foot of this page	28 Aug 1799	24 Feb 1869	69
24 Feb 1869		3	Harcourt Vanden-Bempde-Johnstone He was subsequently created Baron Derwent in 1881 with which title the baronetcy then merged	3 Jan 1829	1 Mar 1916	87
VANDEPUT of Twickenham, Middlesex
7 Nov 1723	GB	1	Peter Vanderput	c 1688	25 Aug 1748
25 Aug 1748 to     17 Jun 1784		2	George Vandeput Extinct on his death	c 1717	17 Jun 1784
VANDERBRANDE of Cleverskirke, Holland
9 Jun 1699	E	1	John Peter Vanderbrande		c 1713
c 1713 to     after 1713		2	Cornelius Vanderbrande Presumably extinct on his death		after 1713
VANE-FLETCHER of Hutton, Cumberland
27 Jun 1786	GB		See "Fletcher-Vane"
VANE-TEMPEST of Long Newton, Durham
13 Jul 1782	GB	1	Henry Vane	c 1725	7 Jun 1794
7 Jun 1794 to     7 Aug 1813		2	Henry Vane-Tempest MP for Durham City 1794‑1800 Extinct on his death		7 Aug 1813
VAN FREISENDORF of Hirdech, Sweden
4 Oct 1661	E		See "von Freisendorff"
VAN LORE of Tylehurst, Berks
3 Sep 1628 to     c 1645	E	1	Peter van Lore Extinct on his death	c 1580	c 1645
VANNECK of Putney, Surrey
14 Dec 1751	GB	1	Joshua Vanneck		6 Mar 1777
6 Mar 1777		2	Gerard William Vanneck MP for Dunwich 1768‑1790	c 1743	22 May 1791
22 May 1791		3	Joshua Vanneck He was subsequently created Baron Huntingfield in 1796 with which title the baronetcy remains merged, although, as at 30/06/2014, the baronetcy does not appear in the Official Roll of the Baronetage	31 Dec 1745	15 Aug 1816	70
VAN NOTTEN-POLE of Todenham House, Gloucs
28 Jul 1791	GB		See "Pole"
VAN TROMP of Holland
23 Apr 1675 to     29 May 1691	E	1	Cornelius Martinus van Tromp On his death the baronetcy is presumed to have become either extinct or dormant	c 1630	29 May 1691
VASSAR-SMITH of Charlton Park, Gloucs
10 Jul 1917	UK	1	Richard Vassar Vassar-Smith	11 Jul 1843	2 Aug 1922	79
2 Aug 1922		2	John George Lawley Vassar-Smith	10 Dec 1868	2 May 1942	73
2 May 1942		3	Richard Rathborne Vassar-Smith	24 Nov 1909	12 Aug 1995	85
12 Aug 1995		4	John Rathborne Vassar-Smith	23 Jul 1936
VAUGHAN of Nannau, Merioneth
28 Jul 1791	GB	1	Robert Howell Vaughan	c 1738	13 Oct 1792
13 Oct 1792		2	Robert Williames Vaughan MP for Merioneth 1792‑1836	29 Mar 1768	22 Apr 1843	75
22 Apr 1843 to     29 Apr 1859		3	Robert Williames Vaughan Extinct on his death	23 Jun 1803	29 Apr 1859	55
VAUGHAN-MORGAN of Outwood, Surrey
29 Jan 1960	UK	1	John Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan He was subsequently created Baron Reigate [L] in 1970 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1995	2 Feb 1905	26 Jan 1995	89
VAVASOUR of Haselwood, Yorks
24 Oct 1628	E	1	Thomas Vavasour		before 1636
before 1636		2	Walter Vavasour		after 1666
after 1666		3	Walter Vavasour	c 1644	16 Feb 1713
16 Feb 1713		4	Walter Vavasour	c 1659	May 1740
May 1740		5	Walter Vavasour		13 Apr 1766
13 Apr 1766		6	Walter Vavasour	16 Jan 1744	3 Nov 1802	58
3 Nov 1802 to     20 Jan 1826		7	Thomas Vavasour Extinct on his death	c 1745	20 Jan 1826
VAVASOUR of Killingthorpe, Lincs
22 Jun 1631 to     Feb 1644	E	1	Charles Vavasour Extinct on his death		Feb 1644
VAVASOUR of Copmanthorpe, Yorks
17 Jul 1643 to     18 Feb 1659	E	1	William Vavasour Extinct on his death		18 Feb 1659
VAVASOUR of Spaldington, Yorks
20 Mar 1801	UK	1	Henry Vavasour		15 Mar 1813
15 Mar 1813		2	Henry Maghull Mervin Vavasour	19 Jul 1768	4 Jan 1838	69
4 Jan 1838 to     9 Dec 1912		3	Henry Mervin Vavasour Extinct on his death For further information on this baronet, and a listing of those baronets who have reached their centenaries, see the note at the foot of this page	17 Jun 1814	9 Dec 1912	98
VAVASOUR of Haslewood, Yorks
14 Feb 1828	UK	1	Edward Marmaduke Stourton Vavasour	6 May 1786	15 Mar 1847	60
15 Mar 1847		2	Edward Marmaduke Vavasour	17 jan 1815	23 Aug 1885	70
23 Aug 1885		3	William Edward Joseph Vavasour	28 Nov 1846	18 Nov 1915	68
18 Nov 1915		4	Leonard Pius Vavasour	22 Sep 1881	14 Sep 1961	79
14 Sep 1961		5	Geoffrey William Vavasour	5 Sep 1914	28 Jul 1997	82
28 Jul 1997		6	Eric Michel Joseph Marmaduke Vavasour	3 Jan 1953
VERDIN of The Brockhurst, Cheshire
24 Jul 1896 to     28 Dec 1920	UK	1	Joseph Verdin Extinct on his death	4 Jan 1838	28 Dec 1920	82
VERNATTI of Carleton, Yorks
7 Jun 1634	NS	1	Philibert Vernatti		c Jun 1643
c Jun 1643 to     after 1678		2	Philibert Vernatti On his death the baronetcy is presumed to have become dormant		after 1678
VERNER of Verners Bridge, Armagh
22 Jul 1846	UK	1	William Verner MP for co. Armagh 1832‑1868	25 Oct 1782	20 Jan 1871	88
20 Jan 1871		2	William Verner MP for co. Armagh 1868‑1873 For information on his daughter, Alice Emily, and her involvement in the Bagot Will Case of 1878‑80, see the note at the foot of this page	4 Apr 1822	10 Jan 1873	50
10 Jan 1873		3	William Edward Hercules Verner	11 Jan 1856	8 Jun 1886	30
8 Jun 1886		4	Edward Wingfield Verner MP for Lisburn 1863‑1873 and co. Armagh 1873‑1880	1 Oct 1830	21 Jun 1899	68
21 Jun 1899		5	Edward Wingfield Verner	22 Nov 1865	1 Nov 1936	70
1 Nov 1936 to     27 Mar 1975		6	Edward Derrick Wingfield Verner Extinct on his death	28 May 1907	27 Mar 1975	67
VERNEY of Middle Claydon, Bucks
16 Mar 1661	E	1	Ralph Verney MP for Aylesbury 1640 and 1640‑1645, and Buckingham 1681‑1690	12 Nov 1613	24 Sep 1696	82
24 Sep 1696		2	John Verney He was subsequently created Viscount Fermanagh in 1703 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1752	5 Nov 1640	23 Jun 1717	76
VERNEY of Claydon House, Bucks
3 Dec 1818	UK	1	Harry Calvert		3 Sep 1826
3 Sep 1826		2	Harry Verney MP for Buckingham 1832‑1841, 1857‑1874 and 1880‑1885, and Bedford 1847‑1852; PC 1885	8 Dec 1801	12 Feb 1894	92
12 Feb 1894		3	Edmund Hope Verney MP for Buckingham 1885‑1886 and 1889‑1891 For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of the page containing details of the MPs for Buckingham	6 Apr 1838	8 May 1910	72
8 May 1910		4	Harry Calvert Williams Verney MP for Buckingham 1910‑1918 For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of the page containing details of the MPs for Buckingham	7 Jun 1881	23 Dec 1974	93
23 Dec 1974		5	Ralph Bruce Verney	18 Jan 1915	17 Aug 2001	86
17 Aug 2001		6	Edmund Ralph Verney	28 Jun 1950
VERNEY of Eaton Square, London
16 Jul 1946	UK	1	Sir Ralph Verney	25 May 1879	22 Feb 1959	79
22 Feb 1959		2	John Verney	30 Sep 1913	2 Feb 1993	79
2 Feb 1993		3	John Sebastian Verney	30 Aug 1945
VERNON of Hodnet, Salop
23 Jul 1660	E	1	Henry Vernon MP for Shropshire 1660 and West Looe 1661‑1676	16 Dec 1606	11 Apr 1676	69
Apr 1676		2	Thomas Vernon		5 Feb 1683
5 Feb 1683 to     1 Oct 1725		3	Richard Vernon MP [I] for Monaghan Borough 1703‑1713 Extinct on his death	22 Jun 1678	1 Oct 1725	47
VERNON of Hanbury Hall, Worcs
23 Jul 1885	UK	1	Harry Foley Vernon MP for Worcestershire East 1861‑1868	11 Apr 1834	1 Feb 1920	85
1 Feb 1920 to     14 Jun 1940		2	Bowater George Hamilton Vernon Extinct on his death For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of this page	12 Sep 1865	14 Jun 1940	74
VERNON of Shotwick Park, Cheshire
24 Jan 1914	UK	1	William Vernon	13 Dec 1835	24 Jun 1919	83
24 Jun 1919		2	John Herbert Vernon	12 Jul 1858	13 Jun 1933	74
13 Jun 1933		3	William Norman Vernon	19 Apr 1890	12 Apr 1967	76
12 Apr 1967		4	Nigel John Douglas Vernon	2 May 1924	4 Sep 2007	83
4 Sep 2007		5	James William Vernon	2 Apr 1949
VESEY of Abbey Leix, Queen's Co.
28 Sep 1698	I	1	Thomas Vesey	1673	6 Aug 1730	57
6 Aug 1730		2	John Denny Vesey He was subsequently created Baron Knapton in 1750. The 2nd Baron was created Viscount de Vesci in 1776 with which title the baronetcy remains merged		25 Jul 1761
VESTEY of Bessemer House, Camberwell
21 Jun 1913	UK	1	William Vestey He was subsequently created Baron Vestey in 1922 with which title the baronetcy remains merged	21 Jan 1859	10 Dec 1940	81
VESTEY of Shirley, Surrey
27 Jun 1921	UK	1	Edmund Hoyle Vestey	3 Feb 1866	18 Nov 1953	87
18 Nov 1953		2	John Derek Vestey	4 Jun 1914	29 Jun 2005	91
29 Jun 2005		3	Paul Edmund Vestey	15 Feb 1944
VILLIERS of Brooksby, Lincs
19 Jul 1619	E	1	William Villiers	c 1575	12 Jun 1629
12 Jun 1629		2	George Villiers	Feb 1620	1682	62
1682 to     27 Feb 1712		3	William Villiers MP for Leicester 1698‑1701 Extinct on his death	9 Jan 1645	27 Feb 1712	67
VINCENT of Stoke d'Abernon, Surrey
26 Jul 1620	E	1	Francis Vincent MP for Surrey 1626	c 1568	1640
1640		2	Anthony Vincent	1594	1642	48
1642		3	Francis Vincent MP for Dover 1661‑1670	c 1621	c May 1670
c May 1670		4	Anthony Vincent	c 1645	Sep 1674
Sep 1674		5	Francis Vincent MP for Surrey 1690‑1695 and 1710‑1713	12 Apr 1646	10 Feb 1736	89
10 Feb 1736		6	Henry Vincent MP for Guildford 1728‑1734	c 1685	10 Jan 1757
10 Jan 1757		7	Francis Vincent MP for Surrey 1761‑1775	c 1717	22 May 1775
22 May 1775		8	Francis Vincent	11 Oct 1747	17 Aug 1791	43
17 Aug 1791		9	Francis Vincent	24 Jul 1780	17 Jan 1809	28
17 Jan 1809		10	Francis Vincent MP for St. Albans 1831‑1835	3 Mar 1803	6 Jul 1880	77
6 Jul 1880		11	Frederick Vincent	8 Jan 1798	9 Jan 1883	85
9 Jan 1883		12	William Vincent	20 Sep 1834	16 Feb 1914	79
16 Feb 1914		13	Francis Erskine Vincent	24 May 1869	28 Aug 1935	66
28 Aug 1935		14	Anthony Francis Vincent	30 Jun 1894	24 Feb 1936	41
24 Feb 1936		15	Frederick d'Abernon Vincent	12 Feb 1852	2 Mar 1936	84
2 Mar 1936		16	Edgar Vincent He had previously been created Viscount D'Abernon in 1926 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1941	19 Aug 1857	1 Nov 1941	84
VINCENT of Watton, Norfolk
18 Jan 1937	UK	1	Sir Percy Vincent	3 Sep 1868	22 Jan 1943	74
22 Jan 1943		2	Lacey Eric Vincent	13 Jan 1902	21 Oct 1963	61
21 Oct 1963		3	William Percy Maxwell Vincent	1 Feb 1945
VINER of London
10 May 1666 to     2 Sep 1688	E	1	Robert Viner Extinct on his death For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of this page	1631	2 Sep 1688	57
VITUS of Limerick
29 Jun 1677 to     11 May 1691	E	1	Ignatius Vitus Baronetcy forfeited	c 1626	21 Aug 1694
VIVIAN of Truro, Cornwall
19 Jan 1828	UK	1	Richard Hussey Vivian He was subsequently created Baron Vivian in 1841 with which title the baronetcy remains merged	28 Jul 1775	20 Aug 1842	67
VIVIAN of Singleton, Glamorgan
13 May 1882	UK	1	Henry Hussey Vivian He was subsequently created Baron Swansea in 1893 with which title the baronetcy remains merged, although as at 30/06/2014 the baronetcy does not appear on the Official Roll of the Baronetage	6 Jul 1821	28 Nov 1894	73
VON FREISENDORFF of Hirdeck, Sweden
			In Leigh's original pages, he had the note "nothing further is known about this baronetcy" after the name of the first baronet (who was identified as John Frederick van Freisendorff), and no other people listed. However, the von Freisendorffs, living in Sweden, continued to use the title, and were readmitted to the Official Roll of the Baronetage in 2018.
4 Oct 1661	E	1	Johan Frederick von Freisendorff	1617	13 May 1670
1670		2	Johan Frederick von Freisendorff	1657	1725
1725		3	Johan Frederick von Freisendorff	1700	1742
1742		4	Johan Frederick von Freisendorff	1740	1 Jan 1794	53
1 Jan 1794		5	Carl Gabriel von Freisendorff	24 May 1758	30 Apr 1824	65
30 Apr 1824		6	Fredrik Reinhold von Freisendorff	24 Dec 1765	2 Feb 1829	63
2 Feb 1829		7	Fredrik Ludvig Alexander von Freisendorff	20 Jun 1780	1 Apr 1847	66
1 Apr 1847		8	Claes Fredrik Ludvig von Freisendorff	16 Feb 1832	5 Sep 1897	65
5 Sep 1897		9	Fredrik Axel Valdemar von Freisendorff	20 Apr 1870	11 Dec 1962	92
11 Dec 1962		10	Claes Fredrik Wilhelm von Freisendorff	4 Nov 1903	24 Sep 1974	70
24 Sep 1974		11	Rickard Fredrik Knut von Freisendorff	16 Dec 1937	21 Nov 2023	85
21 Nov 2023		12	Johan Frederick von Freisendorff	1966
VYNER of London
18 Jun 1661	E	1	Thomas Vyner	15 Dec 1588	11 May 1665
11 May 1665		2	George Vyner	c 1639	5 Jul 1673
5 Jul 1673 to     May 1683		3	Thomas Vyner Extinct on his death	21 Jun 1664	3 May 1683	18
VYVYAN of Trelowarren, Cornwall
12 Feb 1645	E	1	Richard Vyvyan MP for Penryn 1640, Tregony 1640‑1644 and St. Mawes 1663‑1665	c 1613	3 Oct 1665
3 Oct 1665		2	Vyell Vyvyan MP for Helston 1679‑1681	20 May 1639	24 Feb 1697	57
24 Feb 1697		3	Richard Vyvyan MP for Mitchell 1701‑1702 and Cornwall 1703‑1708 and 1712‑1713	c 1677	12 Oct 1724
12 Oct 1724		4	Francis Vyvyan	29 Sep 1698	29 Dec 1745	47
Dec 1745		5	Richard Vyvyan	11 May 1731	20 Oct 1781	50
20 Oct 1781		6	Carew Vyvyan	11 Jan 1737	4 Oct 1814	77
4 Oct 1814		7	Vyell Vyvyan	12 Jul 1767	27 Jan 1820	52
27 Jan 1820		8	Richard Rawlinson Vyvyan MP for Cornwall 1825‑1831, Okehampton 1831‑1832, Bristol 1832‑1837 and Helston 1841‑1857	6 Jun 1800	15 Aug 1879	79
15 Aug 1879		9	Vyell Donnithorne Vyvyan	16 Aug 1826	27 May 1917	90
27 May 1917		10	Courtenay Bourchier Vyvyan	5 Jun 1858	15 Nov 1941	83
15 Nov 1941		11	Richard Philip Vyvyan	21 Nov 1891	15 May 1978	86
15 May 1978		12	John Stanley Vyvyan	20 Jan 1916	6 Oct 1995	79
6 Oct 1995		13	Ralph Ferrers Alexander Vyvyan	21 Aug 1960

	The special remainder to the baronetcy of Vanden-Bempde-Johnstone created in 1795
	From the London Gazette of 20 June 1795 (issue 13789, page 646):-
	The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baronet of the Kingdom of Great Britain to Richard Bempde Johnstone, of Hackness Hall in the North Riding of the County of York, Esq; with Remainder to his Brother Charles Johnstone, of Haverfordwest, Esq; and his Issue Male.
	Sir John Vanden-Bempde-Johnstone, 2nd baronet
	Sir John died from injuries received in a hunting accident. According to the London Standard of 26 February 1869:-
	It is with great regret we record the death of [Sir John Johnstone], which took place between nine and ten o'clock yesterday morning at his residence in Belgrave-Square. Sir John, who was an enthusiastic sportsman, was out with Mr. Lowndes' hounds, at Bletchley, on Saturday last, when, in taking a drop fence, by some means he lost his saddle, and came down a crash on his shoulder, sustaining severe location and serious internal injury. Mr. Deans, surgeon, of Bletchley, was immediately sent for, and without delay arrived on the scene. On examination he pronounced the injuries to be of a very serious nature. After the skilful attention of the above gentleman Sir John became somewhat composed, and it was thought advisable that he should be removed to London. Accordingly he was conveyed by rail to his town residence, accompanied by Mr. Deans, arriving about 11 o'clock on Saturday night. He was placed under the care of Messrs. Prescott, Hewitt and Leggett, who, assisted by Mr. Deans, used every exertion to mitigate his sufferings, but without avail.
	Sir Henry Mervin Vavasour, 3rd baronet
	The following article appeared in The Washington Post on 6 January 1913:-
	Much money changed hands on the death last week of old Sir Henry Mervin Vavasour, of Spaldington, at the age of nearly 99. For some two or three years ago the fact was brought to light that neither the British peerage nor yet its baronetage had ever produced a centenarian. Sir Henry Vavasour was thereupon discovered to be the very oldest baronet, and was found to be so hale and vigorous that numerous bets were made, not only in his native county of Yorkshire, but also in London clubland, that he would safely pass the hundredth milestone.
	Indeed, the wagers for and against this probability assumed altogether phenomenal proportions, and many of the bettors endeavored to protect themselves by taking out insurance at Lloyds, both against and in favor of his dying before he reached the century mark.
	Now the bettors and Lloyds have been called upon to settle up, since the old baronet has been gathered to his fathers within a little more than twelve months of the goal, his baronetcy becoming extinct.'
	Whilst it was true that at the time of the writing of the above article no peer had ever reached 100 years, my records show that four baronets had already achieved this feat. The following baronets are those who have reached their centenaries:-
	Sir John Morres, 3rd baronet  (29 August 1620-26 October 1720)
	Sir Patrick Grant, 4th baronet  (c 1655-10 April 1755)
	Sir Robert Grierson, 5th baronet  (c 1737-8 August 1839)
	Sir Moses Montefiore, 1st baronet  (24 October 1784-28 July 1885)
	Sir Fitzroy Donald Maclean, 10th baronet  (18 May 1835-22 November 1936)
	Sir Brooke de Malpas Grey-Egerton, 13th baronet  (19 August 1845-5 Nov 1945)
	Sir James Swinburne, 9th baronet  (28 February 1858-30 March 1958)
	Sir Harry Platt, 1st baronet  (7 October 1886-20 December 1986)
	Sir Alexander Frank Philip Christison, 4th baronet  (17 November 1893-21 December 1993)
	Sir Jack Wolfred Ashford Harris, 2nd baronet  (23 July 1906-26 August 2009)
	Dame Anne Maxwell Macdonald, baronetess [11th in line]  (8 September 1906-21 April 2011)
	Sir Richard Michael Keane, 6th baronet  (29 January 1909-28 December 2010)
	Sir Gilbert Simon Heathcote, 9th baronet  (21 September 1913-15 April 2014)
	Sir Roger Moon, 6th baronet  (17 November 1914-16 October 2017)
	Sir Daniel Patrick FitzGerald, 4th baronet  (28 June 1916-9 August 2016)
	Sir Hereward Wake, 14th baronet  (7 October 1916-)
	Alice Emily Verner (12 April 1853-9 July 1908), daughter of Sir William Verner, 2nd baronet
	Alice Verner was a central figure in a remarkable trial which held the attention of the British and Irish public between 1878 and 1880. The contemporary newspapers devoted a very large amount of space to the case, to the extent that I have been forced to limit myself to mere summaries of the case which appeared in Australian papers of the time. A good précis of the trial was published in The Singleton Argus and Upper Hunter General Advocate on 7 August 1878:-
	After a trial which has lasted for twenty-two days the Bagot case has ended in a verdict which sets aside a will and hands a great property over to a disinherited child …
	The object of the trial was to set aside the will of Christopher Neville Bagot, who died on May 23 last year [1877]. The youngest son of an Irish country gentleman who lived in Roscommon, he emigrated to Australia in 1844, and becoming a grazier, he amassed a great fortune. Returning to his native country a few years ago, he bought a large estate for more than a hundred thousand pounds. His family connections as well as his wealth brought him into good society. He was also a man of exceptionally rigorous intellect, and, in spite of his toilsome life in Australia, he retained the cultivated tastes of his youth. On the other hand, he had, it is said, met with some accidents during his work in the bush; his personal habits were not favourable to health; he certainly drank very hard after his return to this country, and, all events, he was crippled and paralytic.
	During a visit to London in July, 1873, he met at dinner Miss Alice Emily Verner, the eldest daughter of the late Sir William Verner, of Churchill in the County of Armagh. She was 22 [20] years of age when she met Mr. Bagot, and he was 50 [46]. He was so charmed with her that we are told that he asked her to marry him a week after they had met. She did not give him a definite answer at the time, but she says that she was attached to him, in spite of his enfeebled state. During the courtship he became intimate with her family. He went to the Continent with them. She drove about with him, received presents from him, and, in company with her sister, attended supper parties which he gave at his hotel in London.
	The friendship went on till the July of 1874, when Miss Verner says that she agreed to marry Mr. Neville Bagot. He wished, however, to be married privately, and she gives a strange account of the manner and the place in which the ceremony was conducted. Meeting him by appointment in the streets, she drove with him in a closed carriage for half-an-hour to some part of the town which she cannot identify and went to a kind of office on the first floor of some house, where she found two men, who made her and her companion sign their names in a book. That was the "preliminary" part of the ceremony. Making another appointment with those persons, Mr. Neville Bagot brought her back again, and one of the men read a very small part of the marriage service out of the Prayer Book, asked some questions, and thus completed the marriage ceremony. Mrs. Bagot believed the place to be registrar's office, but she cannot find it, and there is no record of such a marriage in any of the registrars' books.
	Some time afterwards she was alarmed, she says, by hearing Mr. Neville Bagot say, in a fit of drunken raving, that there had been no marriage at all; and, as she was soon to give birth to a child, she was anxious to put the legality of the union beyond a doubt. He agreed that they should be married by special license; he gave her £30 to pay for it, and, after she had attempted to carry her application direct to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the license was obtained on August 8, 1875. She was married the same night, between 9 and 10, at the house of her family in Eaton Square. The legality of that union is not disputed.
	On October 22, or a little more than two months after the wedding, she gave birth, at Tunbridge Wells, to the son whose claims have been made the subject of the litigation in Dublin. The child was afterwards virtually disinherited on the ground that Mr. Neville Bagot was not his father, and, as the Bagot family profited by his loss, it was all-important for them to make good that contention. One of them, Mr. Bernard Bagot, declared that his brother, the testator, had emphatically denied that there had been any private marriage - the inference being that the lady had been the mistress of Mr. Neville Bagot, and that if she had been the mistress of one man she might have been the mistress of more. But its is very difficult to reconcile such a denial with a statement made by Mr. Neville Bagot himself in more than one of the letters which he wrote immediately after the public ceremony. He said that the marriage had taken place some time before, and had for family reasons been concealed at the wish of Miss Verner.
	The defendants tried to show, by means of some extraordinary conditions which she had signed on the eve of the public marriage, that Mr. Neville Bagot had doubted her purity. She unquestionably did sign a written stipulation that she would always accompany her husband, that she would keep no secrets from him, that she would "give up and cut" all her "fast and tipsy acquaintances and lovers and admirers", that she would cease to write to them and to receive letters and presents from them. Such a document does show that her ways had not been altogether pleasant to her husband. But it is incredible, as the Judge said, that Mr. Neville Bagot would have married a lady who was soon to become a mother if he had not believed himself to be the father of the child. Medical evidence respecting his state of health was adduced on both sides, but it was so contradictory that it may be safely disregarded.
	We need not, however, go to conjecture for proof that he believed the child to be his, since the evidence showed beyond a doubt that was overjoyed when it was born, that he was proud of the likeness which observers traced between it and himself, and that he made it the heir of his estates. On August 16, 1875, two months before the child was born, he made a will, leaving to it his landed property.
	At this stage begins one of the darkest parts of the whole story, and sometimes we can do little else than grope for the truth amid a dense cloud of sworn contradictions. Down to March 13, 1876, or for about five months after the birth of the child, Mr. Neville Bagot believed it to be his; but only four days later he displayed a sudden change of conviction. In two wills, one dated April 15, and the other September 7, 1876, he expressed that change by bequeathing his estates to his brother, John Bagot, and by directing that no more than the first £200 a year, and then £450 should be allotted for the support of Mrs. Bagot's son till he should reach the age of thirty, when he should receive £10,000. Mrs. Bagot herself was to have £1,000 a year.
	What was the cause of the sudden and extraordinary change of belief which led him to set aside the old will? Was it justified by any fact which had come to his own knowledge? No evidence of the slightest value was adduced to show that he had been deceived by Mrs. Bagot, and the judge therefore presumed that the paternity of the child was beyond reasonable doubt. Was Mr. Neville Bagot, then, likely to be the victim of a delusion? That he was naturally a man of vigorous intellect is certain; but Sir Richard Graves McDonnell, late Governor of South ustralia, testified that, although he had a clear head when dealing with public affairs, he was liable to extravagant personal antipathies. He was apt to lose self-control when talking about persons. His habits were also such as would weaken the strongest intellect in the world, and cloud the clearest brain. Although paralytic, and forced to wheel himself from one room to another, he would, if we may trust the evidence of a waiter at one of the hotels where he stayed, drink a pint of iced champagne in the forenoon, have sherry, and sometimes another pint of champagne, at lunch; sherry every day before he drove out, champagne and sherry at dinner, and whisky and hot water before he went to bed. Thus enfeebled by disease that he was always drunk. It was no wonder that [when] he was subject to wild fits of rage and drink, he could easily be misled by stronger minds than his own; and the contention of the plaintiff was that the delusion as to the paternity of the child was planted in the first place by his brother, Bernard Bagot.
	That gentleman is the central figure of one very dramatic scene. He had come to visit Neville Bagot after the drawing up of the will which gave the estates to the child. At an hotel after dinner he was seen, if we may trust one of the witnesses, to take a paper off the chimney of an adjoining bedroom, and place it on the top of a jug of hot water in order to open the seal with the steam. Then he read the inclosed documents and sealed them again. Presently Mr. Neville Bagot came in and asked for his will. Mr. Bernard Bagot answered that it was in the bedroom, and he pretended to go for it; but the witness saw him take it out of his side pocket and bring it in to his brother, who locked it in a tin box. The inference of the plaintiff was that Mr. Bernard Bagot had opened the will to ascertain its contents, and that, on finding all the landed property left to her son, he had deliberately tried to make his brother repudiate the paternity of the child.
	Mr. Bernard Bagot himself, of course, tells a very different story. He knew what the will contained, and he opened it merely to give his brother an opportunity of completing some forgotten formality. Be the truth what it may, Mr. Neville Bagot's household was speedily disturbed by scandalous scenes. He denied that the child was his, and called the mother opprobrious names. She retorted by demanding the authority for his accusations, and, when he would not give it, she called him a "liar". Her theory is that her husband's [mind] was poisoned by the letters which he received from Bernard Bagot and John Bagot, and by their talk with him when they were his guests. She says that she was sometimes kept away from him; that she was not allowed to enter his room, and that she would remain crying in the passage outside. On one occasion, she adds, when the vigilance of the brothers had been relaxed, she got into the sick man's room through the window, and he then said that it was not he who had shut her out. A nurse who had tended him in his last hours declared that he made exclamations implying that he had wronged both his wife and his child.
	The defendants retort by making accusations against Mrs. Bagot. They say that she neglected, disobeyed, and insulted her husband. She enraged him, they assert, by her extravagance, and by going about with men whom he did not know. Nay, an attempt was made to show that her conduct was open to the worst construction when she and her sister dined with two officers at an hotel in Chester. The climax of the insinuations was that she had tried to poison her husband. The attempt to substantiate these charges, however, conspicuously failed.
	The result of the quarrels was a deed of separation from him, drawn up at his desire; and, when she went to ask him why he wanted her to go away, Mr. John Bagot, she says, gave her a push, knocked her down with her head against the fender, and then, with the help of a doctor who was present, dragged her out of the room so violently as to tear the sleeves from her dress. At another time, she declares, he showed her a photograph, and remarked, "That's your successor". She adds that he set spies to watch her, and that he himself dogged her footsteps to find evidence against her. A good deal of that evidence was irrelevant or unproved, and some of it was directly met by sworn denials; but, to a certain extent, it did tend to show that an attempt had been made to oust her from the household for reasons which could not be substantiated.
	The real question for the jury, however, was whether Mr. Neville Bagot had been the victim of a delusion, practically amounting to insanity, in so far as he believed that Mrs. Bagot's child was not his. If that question was to be answered in the affirmative, it was of comparatively little importance to trace the origin of the delusion. The jury might hold either that it had sprung from Mr. Neville Bagot's own excited mind, or that, in good or bad faith, it had been implanted by others. The jury have affirmed that he did show himself incapable of making a will in so far as he fancied he was not the father of his wife's child. That verdict must have been confidently expected by most calm readers of the evidence, and it commands the agreement of the judge.
	The result is that the will is set aside, and that the young child becomes the heir of the landed estates and a great part of the personalty. The plaintiff, Mrs. Neville Bagot, on the other hand, gains little by the verdict. She has been fighting the battle of her son, and it ends an extraordinary trial. But it not unlikely that, in spite of the enormous cost entailed by the presentation of the evidence, and by the twenty-two days' litigation, an attempt will be made to secure another trial, and that the less irrelevant parts of much astonishing evidence may be heard over again.
	And so it proved, as reported in The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser on 26 July 1879:-
	The Court of Appeal, on June 5, delivered judgment in the will case of Bagot v. Bagot. The suit had been instituted by Alice Emily Bagot, daughter of the late Sir William Verner, and widow of Christopher Neville Bagot, for the purpose of having the will of her late husband, dated September, 1876, pronounced invalid. The defendants to the suit were Bernard W. Bagot and Arthur Holmes, executors of deceased. The jury in the Probate Court found the testator was of unsound mind as regarded the paternity of his child, whom he disinherited by the will, and after 23 days' trial Judge Warren made an order declaring the will invalid. The defendants moved for a new trial, which was refused by Judge Warren, and from this refusal the present appeal was brought. The Lord Chancellor [of Ireland], after stating the facts of the case at great length, delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court that, alike upon the nature of the case and conduct of the trial, the verdict found by the jury upon the issue of capacity, and the verdict directed by the judge upon the issue of knowledge and approval of the contents of the instruments, could not be maintained. The costs of the motion in the court below and of the appeal must be borne by Mrs. Bagot.
	Eventually, in August 1880, the case came to a close when the two opposing parties reached a compromise. According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 September 1880:-
	The case of Bagot v. Bagot, which occupied the attention of the public so long, was brought to a close on August 2 on a motion before Chief Registrar Pilkington, Q.C., at the Probate Office, Dublin. Mr. James Murphy, Q.C., on behalf of the defendants, Bernard William Bagot, brother of the deceased and executor to his will, and Joseph Arthur Holmes, the co-executor, applied for an order pursuant to three several consents that the issues of fact to be tried in the Queen's Bench Division by a special jury of the City of Dublin be discharged, and that the defence and other pleadings filed by the plaintiff, Alice Emily Roberts, widow of the testator [she had since re-married], to try the validity of the will, dated September 7, 1876, of the late Christopher Neville Bagot, her husband, be withdrawn, and the defendants as executors be at liberty to obtain probate of the will in common form. They further sought an order that upon such grant of administration Mr. George Morris, of Well Park, county Galway, who had been appointed administrator pendente lite [pending litigation] of the personal estate, should be discharged as such administrator, and the security entered into by himself and his brother, Chief Justice [Michael] Morris [later Baron Killanin], in £15,000, be vacated, the defendants undertaking to pay him anything due in respect of £1,000, the amount of his remuneration, and any balance due in respect to his costs, Mr. Morris to hand over to them the lease of the house and demesne of Aughrane, executed to John Lloyd Neville Bagot, and the keys of the books and presses there, and also the six cases of plate deposited by him in the Provincial Bank, Dublin. It was also sought to discharge the receiver pendente lite, Mr. Joseph Arthur Holmes, one of the defendants, without accounting his security bonds to be cancelled. Mr. Pilkington, Q.C., made the order required, the framing of which was settled, with the assistance of the counsel present.
	Sir Bowater George Hamilton Vernon, 2nd baronet [UK 1885]
	Sir George's obituary in The Times of 19 June 1940 reads:-
	Sir George Vernon, Bt., died at Hanbury Hall, Worcestershire, on June 14.
	Bowater George Hamilton Vernon was born on September 12, 1865, the eldest son of Sir Harry Vernon, 1st baronet, and Lady Georgina Vernon, who was the youngest daughter of the tenth Earl of Haddington. He was educated at Eton and at Brasenose College, Oxford. During the South African War he served with Rimington's Guides, afterwards joining the Worcestershire Yeomanry. In 1920 he succeeded to the baronetcy created of Hanbury Hall in 1885. He spent many years farming in Argentina, and was keenly interested in agriculture and in everything connected with the life and welfare of the parishes in which he was a landowner. He married in 1905 Doris, younger daughter of Mr. James Allan, of Shrawley Wood House, Worcestershire, who survives him.
	Although The Times obituary simply states that Sir George had died, he had in reality shot himself. Sir George appears to have been a man of principle, as is demonstrated by two interesting glimpses into Vernon's character appeared in the Press. Firstly, from the London Daily Mail of 15 June 1940:-
	Sir George Vernon, 74-years-old baronet, owner of 5,000 acres, was found shot yesterday with a revolver near his body, in a bedroom at his Worcestershire home, Hanbury Hall, near Droitwich. There is no heir to the title.
	Sir George was until two years ago chairman of Droitwich County Bench. He resigned after Worcestershire Quarter Sessions had allowed the appeal of a motorist sentenced by the magistrates to four months; imprisonment for dangerous driving involving a fatal accident. In resigning, he said: "It is no good my trying to be severe at Droitwich if decisions are reversed at Worcester."
	Secondly, from the London Telegraph of 18 June 1940:-
	Sir George Vernon, 74, who shot himself at Hanbury Hall, near Droitwich, Worcestershire, was buried yesterday at Shrawley Wood, Worcestershire, without service or ceremony. Six years ago he told a Worcestershire tithe payers' meeting that as a protest against the tithe system he would not be buried in the local churchyard. He stated that he had given instructions that his burial was to take place in unconsecrated ground in a wood, and declared: "No parson is going to read any service over me."
	The coffin was taken in a farm lorry from Hanbury to Shrawley, a distance of 14 miles. The grave was near an old summer-house in which Sir George Spent some of his time. Only employees attended the burial.
	Sir Robert Viner, 1st and only baronet
	The following biography of Sir Robert Viner appeared in the October 1970 issue of the Australian monthly magazine Parade. Note that the article uses the alternative spelling of Viner's name, which I have left unaltered.
	One evening in the 1670s when London's Lord Mayor, Sir Robert Vyner, was entertaining King Charles II in great state, the Merry Monarch decided that his wine-bibbing host was becoming somewhat too familiar. Tactfully the King decided to leave the party before Sir Robert committed some indiscretion that could not be pardoned, even from a Lord Mayor in his cups. Stealing unobtrusively from the table, Charles made his way to the coach waiting for him in the courtyard of the Guildhall. He had just reached the coach when a figure reeled out of the gloom in pursuit, a hand clutched his arm and a hoarse voice roared in his ear: "Sire, you shall stay and take the other bottle." Recognising the Lord Mayor's flushed features, Charles said good-humouredly: "He that's drunk is as good as a king." Then he allowed himself to be led back to the banquet.
	However, the king had more reason than his customary good nature for being indulgent to the magnificent Sir Vyner. There was one thing, the matter of some 400,000 golden guineas (about $10 million in present-day [1970] money) already owed to Vyner by the King and his ministers. There was also His Majesty's future debts to be provided for, the greedy little hands of his mistresses to be satisfied and the other pleasures of the court of Whitehall to be financed. On top of all (though of rather less importance to King Charles) was the fact that even the pay of England's army and navy sometimes depended on the Vyner coffers.
	History records many more outwardly splendid and peacock characters than Vyner - great nobles, politicians, courtesans and poets - in the reign of Charles II. But Sir Robert Vyner was a unique figure of his age. He was the Rothschild of Stuart England, the financier to a kingdom, the shrewd man with the moneybags behind the glittering State pageant. Unlike the Rothschilds, however, Vyner tasted fully the truth of the old adage about the folly of putting trust in princes. He died bankrupt and ruined after King Charles's Government repudiated its debts, falling with a crash that shook the credit of the City of London to its foundations.
	Robert Vyner, the goldsmith's apprentice who was destined for such a meteoric career, was born in Warwickshire in 1631. The younger son of an ancient family in the county, he was sent to London as a youth and apprenticed to his goldsmith uncle, Thomas Vyner. Thomas Vyner thrived greatly during Cromwell's regime when he was Lord Mayor of London [1653‑1654], Controller of the Mint and one of the leading bankers to the Puritan Government. The Restoration of 1660 brought no change in the Vyner fortunes, for Charles II, arriving penniless from his European exile, urgently needed money to maintain the new royalist regime. The only way to satisfy the demands of his ministers, favourites and mistresses was to turn to the financiers of London. This he proceeded to do on a staggering scale.
	By now the 30-year-old Robert Vyner had already set up a flourishing business of his own and was competing in wealth and influence with his famous uncle. In those days "goldsmith" meant much more than a mere dealer in plate and jewellery, and members of the powerful Goldsmiths Company were the equivalent of the big trading banks of today. Their vaults were the strong-rooms where wealthy Londoners deposited their coin, bullion and valuables and to earn interest. In turn, the goldsmiths financed merchant ventures, trading fleets and the needs of government from military expeditions down to the king's personal loans.
	No other monarch ever borrowed on such a scale as the pleasure-loving Charles II. And no other London financier rocketed to such power and eminence as Robert Vyner. The momentous friendship between the monarch and the young goldsmith began within a few months of the king's return. Preparations for his coronation had begun when it was realised that not a single item of the ancient royal regalia of England could be found. Crowns, sceptre, orb, gem-encrusted robes and all the other Crown jewels had either been pawned by Charles I during the Civil War or broken up and sold by the victorious Parliament. Robert Vyner was commissioned to make an entirely new set of regalia costing £30,000 - the foundation of the enormous royal debt that was to pile up over the years.
	For all his hard-headed pursuit of profits, Vyner was a charming, cultivated man with a zest for high living and deep drinking that instantly appealed to Charles II. In 1661 he was appointed royal goldsmith and the king's private banker. He was allotted apartments in Whitehall Palace, a favour never shown to a London merchant before. In return, Vyner advanced the ministry £30,000 to pay the army in Ireland, having shrewdly made a deal securing the loan on the Irish customs and excise duties. However, what really launched Robert Vyner on his golden flood of fortune was his marriage in June 1665 to a wealthy widow, Lady Mary Hyde, who brought him a dowry of more than £100,000.
	Backed by this money and his unrivalled credit as a merchant banker, Vyner plunged into the business of royal moneylender on a scale that staggered contemporaries. At times he was almost financing the English Government singe-handed - from lending money to build ships and raise regiments down to providing jewels for the pretty necks of the king's mistresses. His most spectacular intervention came during the disasters of the Dutch War in 1667 when the enemy fleet inflicted the crowning humiliation of burning British shipping in the Thames. With its sailors mutinous and unpaid, its ships unprepared and its morale at the lowest ebb, the Royal Navy was almost bankrupt when Vyner came to the rescue.
	The goldsmith's usual practice was to borrow money from the big London merchants and guild companies at about six per cent and charge his royal customer at least 10 per cent. Now, drawing on every resource he could muster, he advanced the Treasury the then vast sum of £300,000 to meet the expenses of the navy, army and the king's personal debts. Not long afterwards he offered the even more sensational amount of £800,000 for the right to collect the poll tax throughout Britain. The corrupt and inefficient royal officials had estimated that the tax would not produce much more than half that amount if they collected it themselves.
	Vyner's moneylending and tax-farming coups were calculated risks on a grand scale. But, as long as his credit was unshaken and the Government honoured its obligations, the profits were dazzling. The grateful monarch created his financier a baronet. Sir Robert Vyner was now his intimate friend, confidant and often his boon drinking crony. Vyner's counting house having been burned down in the Great Fire in 1666, Charles allowed his friend to store his hoard of coin, bullion, plate and jewels in one of the towers of Windsor Castle.
	When Sir Robert Vyner became Lord Mayor in 1674 he was at the peak of his fortunes as one of the richest and most powerful citizen[s] London had ever known. He had an enormous, rambling town house in Lombardy Street, where he lived in luxury that princes would have envied, as well as suites of apartments in Whitehall Palace and Windsor Castle. Outside London in Middlesex was his magnificent country mansion of Swakeleys. "No man in England lived in greater plenty," Samuel Pepys recoded in his diary after inspecting the sumptuous furniture, paintings and gardens. Londoners had never seen such spectacular lord mayoral feasts, processions and pageants as those staged during Sir Robert Vyner's regime at the Guildhall. King Charles was a frequent banquet guest. The food and wine, he explained genially, were better and more plentiful than he could afford at Whitehall - especially the wine from the Vyner cellars.
	At this time it was calculated that the total royal debt to the City of London had reached the colossal figure of about £1 million sterling or something like $20 million in modern [1970] times. About half of it was owed to Sir Robert Vyner, who in turn had borrowed huge sums from his merchants and goldsmiths to satisfy the king's insatiable demands. The Court swallowed money like a bottomless pit. Nothing, it seemed, could keep pace with Charles's spending. For several years there were sinister signs of the coming crash that was to shake the credit of the city to its foundations. Interest on the royal loans lagged far in arrears or remained unpaid altogether. Vyner had a struggle to meet his commitments to his own worried band of creditors.
	Then came the final thunderbolt. The king's ministers calmly announced the repudiation of every penny of the debt in exchange for a system of annuities for His Majesty's creditors. Vyner's annuity was fixed at £26,000, an amount that made it utterly impossible for him to meet his debts let alone maintain his princely style of living. In March 1683 the former dictator of the London money market was forced to call a meeting of his creditors and beg them to enter into some arrangement. However, there were many jealous rivals glad to see the "lord of Lombard Street" dragged down. A year later Vyner was declared bankrupt and much of his estate was broken up and sold.
	Though owning only a shadow of his former fortune, Vyner remained on friendly terms with the new king, James II, who succeeded his spendthrift brother Charles in 1685. It was among the royal household at Windsor Castle that the magnificent and fallen Sir Robert Vyner died on September 2, 1688.

	Copyright © 2003-2017 Leigh Rayment
	Copyright © 2020-2025 Helen Belcher OBE