PEERAGES
Last updated 18/11/2018 (18 Jan 2024)
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
COWPER
14 Dec 1706 18 Mar 1718	B E	1 1	Sir William Cowper, 3rd baronet Created Baron Cowper 14 Dec 1706, and Viscount Fordwich and Earl Cowper 18 Mar 1718 MP for Hertford 1695‑1700 and Bere Alston 1701‑1705; Keeper of the Great Seal 1705; Lord Chancellor 1707‑1710 and 1714‑1718; Lord Lieutenant Hertford 1710‑1712 and 1715‑1722; PC 1705	24 Jun 1665	10 Oct 1723	58
10 Oct 1723		2	William Clavering‑Cowper Lord Lieutenant Hertford 1744‑1764	13 Aug 1709	18 Sep 1764	55
18 Sep 1764		3	George Nassau Clavering‑Cowper MP for Hertford 1759‑1761	26 Aug 1738	22 Dec 1789	51
22 Dec 1789		4	George Augustus Clavering‑Cowper	9 Aug 1776	12 Feb 1799	22
12 Feb 1799		5	Peter Leopold Louis Francis Nassau Clavering‑Cowper	6 May 1778	21 Jul 1837	59
21 Jul 1837		6	George Augustus Frederick Cowper MP for Canterbury 1830‑1835; Lord Lieutenant Kent 1846‑1856	26 Jun 1806	15 Apr 1856	49
15 Apr 1856 to     18 Jul 1905		7	Francis Thomas de Grey Cowper Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1880‑1882; Lord Lieutenant Bedford 1861‑1905; KG 1865; PC 1871 He obtained a reversal of the attainder of the Baronies of Butler of Moore Park and Dingwall in 1871. In 1880 he succeeded to the Barony of Lucas of Crudwell. On his death the creations of 1706 and 1718 became extinct, the Barony of Butler of Moore Park fell into abeyance and the Baronies of Dingwall and Lucas of Crudwell passed to his heir general Auberon Lucas - see "Lucas of Crudwell"	11 Jun 1834	18 Jul 1905	71
COX
24 Jan 1983	B[L]		Caroline Anne Cox Created Baroness Cox for life 24 Jan 1983	6 Jul 1937
COZENS-HARDY
1 Jul 1914	B	1	Sir Herbert Hardy Cozens‑Hardy Created Baron Cozens-Hardy 1 Jul 1914 MP for Norfolk North 1885‑1899; Lord Justice of Appeal 1901‑1907; Master of the Rolls 1907‑1918; PC 1901	22 Nov 1838	18 Jun 1920	81
18 Jun 1920		2	William Hepburn Cozens‑Hardy MP for Norfolk South 1918‑1920 For information on his death, see the note at the foot of this page	25 Mar 1868	25 May 1924	56
25 May 1924		3	Edward Herbert Cozens‑Hardy	28 Jun 1873	22 Oct 1956	83
22 Oct 1956 to     11 Sep 1975		4	Herbert Arthur Cozens‑Hardy Peerage extinct on his death	8 Jun 1907	11 Sep 1975	68
CRAIG OF RADLEY
30 Jul 1991	B[L]		Sir David Brownrigg Craig Created Baron Craig of Radley for life 30 Jul 1991 Marshal of the RAF; Chief of the Defence Staff 1988‑1991	17 Sep 1929
CRAIGAVON
20 Jan 1927	V	1	Sir James Craig, 1st baronet Created Viscount Craigavon 20 Jan 1927 MP for Down East 1906‑1918 and Down Mid 1918‑1921; Prime Minister of Northern Ireland 1921‑1940; PC [I] 1921; PC [NI] 1922	8 Jan 1871	24 Nov 1940	69
24 Nov 1940		2	James Craig	2 Mar 1906	18 May 1974	68
18 May 1974		3	Janric Fraser Craig [Elected hereditary peer 1999-]	9 Jun 1941
CRAIGMYLE
7 May 1929	B	1	Thomas Shaw Created Baron Shaw for life 20 Feb 1909 and Baron Craigmyle 7 May 1929 MP for Hawick 1892‑1909; Solicitor General for Scotland 1894‑1895; Lord Advocate 1905‑1909; PC 1906	23 May 1850	28 Jun 1937	87
28 Jun 1937		2	Alexander Shaw MP for Kilmarnock 1915‑1923	28 Feb 1883	29 Sep 1944	61
29 Sep 1944		3	Thomas Donald Mackay Shaw	17 Nov 1923	30 Apr 1998	74
30 Apr 1998		4	Thomas Columba Shaw	19 Oct 1960
CRAIGTON
3 Nov 1959 to     28 Jul 1993	B[L]		John [Jack] Nixon Browne Created Baron Craigton for life 3 Nov 1959 MP for Govan 1950‑1955 and Craigton 1955‑1959; Minister of State for Scotland 1959‑1964; PC 1961 Peerage extinct on his death	3 Sep 1904	28 Jul 1993	88
CRAMOND
23 Feb 1628	B[S]	1	Dame Elizabeth Richardson Created Baroness of Cramond 23 Feb 1628		3 Apr 1651
3 Apr 1651		2	Thomas Richardson MP for Norfolk 1660‑1674	19 Jun 1627	16 May 1674	46
16 May 1674		3	Henry Richardson	Oct 1650	5 Jan 1701	50
5 Jan 1701		4	William Richardson	2 Aug 1654	7 Mar 1719	64
7 Mar 1719 to     29 Jul 1735		5	William Richardson Peerage extinct on his death	Feb 1715	29 Jul 1735	20
CRANBORNE
20 Aug 1604	V	1	Sir Robert Cecil Created Baron Cecil of Essendon 13 Aug 1603, Viscount Cranborne 20 Aug 1604 and Earl of Salisbury 4 May 1605 See "Salisbury"	1 Jun 1563	24 May 1612	48
29 Apr 1992	V	1	Robert Michael James Cecil He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Cecil of Essendon and Viscount Cranborne 29 Apr 1992 Created Baron Gascoyne-Cecil 17 Nov 1999 See "Salisbury"	30 Sep 1946
CRANBROOK
4 May 1878 22 Aug 1892	V E	1 1	Gathorne Gathorne-Hardy Created Viscount Cranbrook 4 May 1878 and Baron Medway and Earl of Cranbrook 22 Aug 1892 MP for Leominster 1856‑1865 and Oxford University 1865‑1878; President of the Poor Law Board 1866‑1867; Home Secretary 1867‑1868; Secretary for War 1874‑1878; Secretary of State for India 1878‑1880; Lord President of the Council 1885‑1886 and 1886‑1892; PC 1866	1 Oct 1814	30 Oct 1906	92
30 Oct 1906		2	John Stewart Gathorne‑Hardy MP for Rye 1868‑1880, Kent Mid 1884‑1885 and Medway 1885‑1892	22 Mar 1839	13 Jul 1911	72
13 Jul 1911		3	Gathorne Gathorne-Hardy	18 Dec 1870	23 Dec 1915	45
23 Dec 1915		4	John David Gathorne‑Hardy	15 Apr 1900	22 Nov 1978	78
22 Nov 1978		5	Gathorne Gathorne-Hardy	20 Jun 1933
CRANFIELD
9 Jul 1621	B	1	Lionel Cranfield Created Baron Cranfield 9 Jul 1621 and Earl of Middlesex 16 Sep 1622 See "Middlesex"	13 Mar 1575	6 Aug 1645	70
4 Apr 1675	B	1	Charles Sackville Created Baron Cranfield and Earl of Middlesex 4 Apr 1675 See "Middlesex"	24 Jan 1638	29 Jan 1706	68
CRANLEY
20 May 1776 19 Jun 1801	B V	1 1	George Onslow Created Baron Cranley 20 May 1776, and Viscount Cranley and Earl of Onslow 19 Jun 1801 See "Onslow"	13 Sep 1731	17 May 1814	82
CRANSTOUN
17 Nov 1609	B[S]	1	Sir William Cranstoun Created Lord Cranstoun 17 Nov 1609		23 Jul 1627
23 Jul 1627		2	John Cranstoun		by 1642
by 1642		3	William Cranstoun		c 1680
c 1680		4	James Cranstoun		c 1700
c 1700		5	William Cranstoun		27 Jan 1727
27 Jan 1727		6	James Cranstoun		8 Jul 1773
8 Jul 1773		7	William Cranstoun	3 Sep 1749	30 Jul 1778	28
30 Jul 1778		8	James Cranstoun	26 Jun 1755	22 Sep 1796	41
22 Sep 1796		9	James Edmund Cranstoun	1784	5 Sep 1818	34
5 Sep 1818		10	James Edward Cranstoun	12 Aug 1809	18 Jun 1869	59
18 Jun 1869 to     28 Sep 1869		11	Charles Frederick Cranstoun Peerage extinct on his death	1811	28 Sep 1869	52
CRANWORTH
20 Dec 1850	B	1	Sir Robert Monsey Rolfe Created Baron Cranworth 20 Dec 1850 MP for Penryn & Falmouth 1832‑1839; Solicitor General 1834 and 1835‑1839; Lord Chancellor 1852‑1858 and 1865‑1866; PC 1850	18 Dec 1790	26 Jul 1868	77
28 Jan 1899	B	1	Robert Thornhagh Gurdon Created Baron Cranworth 28 Jan 1899 MP for Norfolk South 1880‑1885 and Norfolk Mid 1885‑1892 and 1895	18 Jun 1829	13 Oct 1902	73
13 Oct 1902		2	Bertram Francis Gurdon KG 1948	13 Jun 1877	4 Jan 1964	86
4 Jan 1964		3	Philip Bertram Gurdon	24 May 1940
CRATHORNE
15 Jul 1959	B	1	Thomas Lionel Dugdale, 1st baronet Created Baron Crathorne 15 Jul 1959 MP for Richmond 1929‑1959; Minister for Agriculture & Fisheries 1951‑1954; PC 1951	20 Jul 1897	26 Mar 1977	79
26 Mar 1977		2	Charles James Dugdale Lord Lieutenant North Yorkshire 1999-2014 [Elected hereditary peer 1999-]	12 Sep 1939
CRAVEN
			For information regarding the alleged "Curse of the Cravens", see the note at the foot of this page
12 Mar 1627 16 Mar 1664 to     9 Apr 1697 11 Dec 1665	B E     B	1 1     1	Sir William Craven Created Baron Craven 12 Mar 1627 and Baron Craven, Viscount Craven and Earl of Craven 16 Mar 1664, and Baron Craven 11 Dec 1665 Lord Lieutenant Middlesex 1670‑1689; PC 1681 On his death all peerages except the Barony of 1665 became extinct	Jun 1608	9 Apr 1697	88
9 Apr 1697		2	William Craven Lord Lieutenant Berkshire 1702‑1711	24 Oct 1668	9 Oct 1711	42
9 Oct 1711		3	William Craven	1700	10 Aug 1739	39
10 Aug 1739		4	Fulwar Craven		10 Nov 1764
10 Nov 1764		5	William Craven MP for Warwickshire 1746‑1764	19 Sep 1705	17 Mar 1769	63
17 Mar 1769		6	William Craven Lord Lieutenant Berkshire 1786‑1791	11 Sep 1738	27 Sep 1791	53
27 Sep 1791	E	7 1	William Craven Created Viscount Uffington and Earl of Craven 18‑Jun‑1801 Lord Lieutenant Berkshire 1819‑1825	28 Sep 1770	30 Jul 1825	54
30 Jul 1825		2	William Craven Lord Lieutenant Warwickshire 1853‑1856	18 Aug 1809	25 Aug 1866	57
25 Aug 1866		3	George Grimston Craven Lord Lieutenant Berkshire 1881‑1883	16 Mar 1841	7 Dec 1883	42
7 Dec 1883		4	William George Robert Craven Lord Lieutenant Warwickshire 1913‑1921	16 Dec 1868	10 Jul 1921	52
10 Jul 1921		5	William George Bradley Craven	31 Jul 1897	15 Sep 1932	35
15 Sep 1932		6	William Robert Bradley Craven	8 Sep 1917	27 Jan 1965	47
27 Jan 1965		7	Thomas Robert Douglas Craven	24 Aug 1957	22 Oct 1983	26
22 Oct 1983		8	Simon George Craven	16 Sep 1961	30 Aug 1990	28
30 Aug 1990		9	Benjamin Robert Joseph Craven	13 Jun 1989
CRAVEN OF RYTON
21 Mar 1643 to     1648	B	1	John Craven Created Baron Craven of Ryton 21 Mar 1643 MP for Tewkesbury 1640‑1641 Peerage extinct on his death	c 1610	1648
CRAWFORD
21 Apr 1398	E[S]	1	Sir David Lindsay Created Earl of Crawford 21 Apr 1398	c 1360	Feb 1407
Feb 1407		2	Alexander Lindsay	c 1387	1438
1438		3	David Lindsay		17 Jan 1446
17 Jan 1446		4	Alexander Lindsay For information on a legend concerning the death of this peer, see the note at the foot of this page		Sep 1453
Sep 1453		5	David Lindsay Created Duke of Montrose 1488, and this peerage extinct on his death	1440	25 Dec 1495	55
25 Dec 1495		6	John Lindsay		9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513		7	Alexander Lindsay	c 1443	May 1517
May 1517		8	David Lindsay		27 Nov 1542
27 Nov 1542		9	David Lindsay		20 Sep 1558
20 Sep 1558		10	David Lindsay	1527	Oct 1574	47
Oct 1574		11	David Lindsay	1552	22 Nov 1607	55
22 Nov 1607		12	David Lindsay	8 Mar 1576	Feb 1620	43
Feb 1620		13	Henry Lindsay		1623
1623		14	George Lindsay		1633
1633		15	Alexander Lindsay		1639
1639		16	Ludovic Lindsay		Nov 1652
Nov 1652		17	John Lindsay He was created Earl of Lindsay 1633	c 1598	1678
1678		18	William Lindsay	Apr 1644	6 Mar 1698	53
6 Mar 1698		19	John Lindsay	by 1672	Dec 1713
Dec 1713		20	John Lindsay	4 Oct 1702	25 Dec 1749	47
25 Dec 1749		21	George Lindsay-Crawford	c 1729	11 Aug 1781
11 Aug 1781		22	George Lindsay-Crawford Lord Lieutenant Fife 1798‑1807 and 1807‑1808 For further information on the claim made for the peerages, see the note at the foot of this page	31 Jan 1758	30 Jan 1808	49
30 Jan 1808		23	Alexander Lindsay He succeeded as 6th Earl of Balcarres in 1768 Governor of Jamaica 1794‑1801	18 Jan 1752	27 Mar 1825	73
27 Mar 1825		24	James Lindsay (also 7th Earl of Balcarres) Created Baron Wigan 5 Jul 1826 MP for Wigan 1820‑1825	27 Apr 1783	15 Dec 1869	86
15 Dec 1869		25	Alexander William Crawford Lindsay (also 8th Earl of Balcarres) For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	16 Oct 1812	13 Dec 1880	68
13 Dec 1880		26	James Ludovic Lindsay (also 9th Earl of Balcarres) MP for Wigan 1874‑1880; KT 1891	28 Jul 1847	31 Jan 1913	65
31 Jan 1913		27	David Alexander Edward Lindsay (also 10th Earl of Balcarres) MP for Chorley 1895‑1913; President of the Board of Agriculture 1916; Lord Privy Seal 1916‑1918; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1919‑1921; First Commissioner of Works 1921; Minister of Transport 1922; PC 1916; KT 1921	10 Oct 1871	8 Mar 1940	68
8 Mar 1940		28	David Alexander Robert Lindsay (also 11th Earl of Balcarres) MP for Lonsdale 1924‑1940. KT 1955	20 Nov 1900	13 Dec 1975	75
13 Dec 1975		29	Robert Alexander Lindsay (also 12th Earl of Balcarres) Created Baron Balniel 24 Jan 1975 MP for Hertford 1955‑1974 and Welwyn Hatfield Feb‑Oct 1974; Minister of State for Defence 1970‑1972; Minister of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs 1972‑1974; PC 1972; KT 1996	5 Mar 1927	18 Mar 2023	96
18 Mar 2023		30	Anthony Robert Lindsay (also 13th Earl of Balcarres)	24 Nov 1958
CRAWLEY
24 Jul 1998	B[L]		Christine Mary Crawley Created Baroness Crawley for life 24 Jul 1998 MEP for Birmingham East 1984‑1999	9 Jan 1950
CRAWSHAW
25 Aug 1892	B	1	Sir Thomas Brooks, 1st baronet Created Baron Crawshaw 25 Aug 1892	15 May 1825	5 Feb 1908	82
5 Feb 1908		2	William Brooks	16 Oct 1853	19 Jan 1929	75
19 Jan 1929		3	Gerald Beach Brooks	1 Apr 1884	21 Oct 1946	62
21 Oct 1946		4	William Michael Clifton Brooks	25 Mar 1933	7 Nov 1997	64
7 Nov 1997		5	David Gerald Brooks	14 Sep 1934
CRAWSHAW OF AINTREE
17 May 1985 to     16 Jul 1986	B[L]		Richard Crawshaw Created Baron Crawshaw of Aintree for life 17 May 1985 MP for Toxteth 1964‑1983 Peerage extinct on his death	25 Sep 1917	16 Jul 1986	68
CREMORNE
19 Jun 1785 to     1 Mar 1813 11 Nov 1797	V[I]     B[I]	1     1	Thomas Dawson Created Baron Dartrey 28 May 1770, Viscount Cremorne 19 Jun 1785 and Baron Cremorne 11 Nov 1797 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of 1797, see the note at the foot of this page MP [I] for Monaghan County 1749‑1768 On his death the Viscountcy became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	25 Feb 1725	1 Mar 1813	88
1 Mar 1813		2	Richard Thomas Dawson MP for Monaghan 1812‑1813	31 Aug 1788	21 Mar 1827	38
21 Mar 1827		3	Richard Dawson He was created Earl of Dartrey in 1866 with which title this peerage then merged	7 Sep 1817	12 May 1897	79
CRETING
27 Jan 1332 to     after 1332	B	1	John de Creting Summoned to Parliament as Lord Creting 27 Jan 1332 The peerage presumably became extinct on his death		after 1332
CREW OF STENE
20 Apr 1661	B	1	John Crew Created Baron Crew of Stene 20 Apr 1661 MP for Amersham 1623‑1625, Brackley 1626 and 1640‑1648, Banbury 1628‑1629, and Northamptonshire 1640 and 1654‑1655	1598	12 Dec 1679	81
12 Dec 1679		2	Thomas Crew MP for Northamptonshire 1656‑1658 and Brackley 1659‑1679	1624	30 Nov 1697	73
30 Nov 1697 to     18 Sep 1721		3	Nathaniel Crew Bishop of Oxford 1671‑1674; Bishop of Durham 1674‑1721; Lord Lieutenant Durham 1674‑1689 and 1712‑1714; PC 1686 Peerage extinct on his death	31 Jan 1633	18 Sep 1721	88
CREWE
25 Feb 1806	B	1	John Crewe Created Baron Crewe 25 Feb 1806 MP for Stafford 1765‑1768 and Cheshire 1768‑1802	27 Sep 1742	28 Apr 1829	86
28 Apr 1829		2	John Crewe	1772	4 Dec 1835	63
4 Dec 1835 to     3 Jan 1894		3	Hungerford Crewe Peerage extinct on his death	10 Aug 1812	3 Jan 1894	81
17 Jul 1895 3 Jul 1911 to     20 Jun 1945	E M	1 1	Robert Offley Ashburton Crewe-Milnes, 2nd Baron Houghton Created Earl of Crewe 17 Jul 1895 and Earl of Madeley and Marquess of Crewe 3 Jul 1911 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1892‑1895; Lord President of the Council 1905‑1908 and 1915‑1916; Lord Privy Seal 1908‑1911 and 1912‑1915; Secretary of State for India 1910‑1915; Secretary of State for War 1921; Lord Lieutenant London 1912‑1944; PC 1892; KG 1908 Peerages extinct on his death	12 Jan 1858	20 Jun 1945	87
CRICHTON
c 1443	B[S]	1	William Crichton Created Lord Crichton c 1443 Chancellor of Scotland 1439‑1443 and 1448‑1454		c May 1454
c May 1454		2	James Crichton		c 1455
c 1455 to     24 Feb 1484		3	William Crichton His peerage was forfeited in 1484		by Oct 1493
29 Aug 1642	B[S]	1	James Crichton Created Lord Crichton and Viscount of Frendraught 29 Aug 1642 See "Frendraught"	c 1620	1665
CRICHTON OF SANQUHAR
29 Jan 1488	B[S]	1	Sir Robert Crichton Created Lord Crichton of Sanquhar 29 Jan 1488		c 1495
c 1495		2	Robert Crichton		9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513		3	Robert Crichton		c 1520
c 1520		4	Robert Crichton		c 1535
c 1535		5	William Crichton		11 Jun 1550
11 Jun 1550		6	Robert Crichton		1561
1561		7	Edward Crichton		23 May 1569
23 May 1569		8	Robert Crichton He was hanged for murder - for further information, see the note at the foot of this page		29 Jun 1612
29 Jun 1612		9	William Crichton He was created Earl of Dumfries in 1633 into which title this peerage then merged		1643
CRICKHOWELL
15 Oct 1987 to     17 Mar 2018	B[L]		Roger Nicholas Edwards Created Baron Crickhowell for life 15 Oct 1987 MP for Pembrokeshire 1970‑1987; Secretary of State for Wales 1979‑1987; PC 1979 Peerage extinct on his death	25 Feb 1934	17 Mar 2018	84
CRISP
28 Apr 2006	B[L]		Sir Edmund Nigel Ramsay Crisp Created Baron Crisp for life 28 Apr 2006	14 Jan 1952
CROFT
28 May 1940	B	1	Sir Henry Page Croft, 1st baronet Created Baron Croft 28 May 1940 MP for Christchurch 1910‑1918 and Bournemouth 1918‑1940; PC 1945	22 Jun 1881	7 Dec 1947	66
7 Dec 1947		2	Michael Henry Glendower Page Croft	20 Aug 1916	11 Jan 1997	80
11 Jan 1997		3	Bernard William Henry Page Croft	28 Aug 1949
CROFTON
1 Dec 1797	B[I]	1	Anne Crofton Created Baroness Crofton 1 Dec 1797	11 Jan 1751	12 Aug 1817	66
12 Aug 1817		2	Sir Edward Crofton, 4th baronet	1 Aug 1806	27 Dec 1869	63
27 Dec 1869		3	Edward Henry Churchill Crofton	21 Oct 1834	22 Sep 1912	77
22 Sep 1912		4	Arthur Edward Lowther Crofton	7 Aug 1866	15 Jun 1942	75
15 Jun 1942		5	Edward Blaise Crofton	31 May 1926	13 Jun 1974	48
13 Jun 1974		6	Charles Edward Piers Crofton	27 Apr 1949	27 Jun 1989	40
27 Jun 1989		7	Guy Patrick Gilbert Crofton	17 Jun 1951	25 Nov 2007	56
25 Nov 2007		8	Edward Harry Piers Crofton	23 Jan 1988
CROFTS
18 May 1658 to     11 Sep 1677	B	1	William Crofts Created Baron Crofts 18 May 1658 Peerage extinct on his death	c 1611	11 Sep 1677
CROHAM
8 Feb 1978 to     11 Sep 2011	B[L]		Sir Douglas Albert Vivian Allen Created Baron Croham for life 8 Feb 1978 Peerage extinct on his death	15 Dec 1917	11 Sep 2011	93
CROMARTIE
1 Jan 1703	E[S]	1	Sir George Mackenzie Created Lord Macleod & Castlehaven and Viscount of Tarbat 15 Apr 1685, and Lord Macleod & Castlehaven, Viscount of Tarbat and Earl of Cromartie 1 Jan 1703	1630	17 Aug 1714	84
17 Aug 1714		2	John Mackenzie	c 1656	20 Feb 1731
20 Feb 1731 to     1746		3	George Mackenzie He was convicted of treason and the peerage forfeited in 1746	c 1703	28 Sep 1766
21 Oct 1861	E	1	Anne Sutherland-Leveson-Gower Created Baroness Macleod, Baroness Castlehaven, Viscountess Tarbat and Countess of Cromartie 21 Oct 1861 For information about the special remainders included in the creations of these peerages, see the note at the foot of this page	21 Apr 1829	25 Nov 1888	59
25 Nov 1888 to     24 Nov 1893		2	Francis Sutherland-Leveson-Gower On his death the peerage fell into abeyance	3 Aug 1852	24 Nov 1893	41
25 Feb 1895		3	Sibell Lilian Mackenzie Blunt Abeyance terminated in her favour 1895	14 Aug 1878	20 May 1962	83
20 May 1962		4	Roderick Grant Francis Mackenzie	24 Oct 1904	13 Dec 1989	85
13 Dec 1989		5	John Ruaridh Blunt Grant Mackenzie	12 Jun 1948
CROMER
20 Jun 1892 25 Jan 1899 6 Aug 1901	B V E	1 1 1	Evelyn Baring Created Baron Cromer 20 Jun 1892, Viscount Cromer 25 Jan 1899 and Viscount Errington and Earl of Cromer 6 Aug 1901 PC 1900; OM 1906	26 Feb 1841	29 Jan 1917	75
29 Jan 1917		2	Rowland Thomas Baring PC 1922	29 Nov 1877	13 May 1953	75
13 May 1953		3	George Rowland Stanley Baring Governor of the Bank of England 1961‑1966; PC 1966; KG 1977	28 Jul 1918	16 Mar 1991	72
16 Mar 1991		4	Evelyn Rowland Esmond Baring	3 Jun 1946
CROMWELL
10 Mar 1308 to     c 1335	B	1	John de Cromwell Summoned to Parliament as Lord Cromwell 10 Mar 1308 Peerage extinct on his death		c 1335
28 Dec 1375	B	1	Ralph de Cromwell Summoned to Parliament as Lord Cromwell 28 Dec 1375		27 Aug 1398
27 Aug 1398		2	Ralph de Cromwell	1368	1417	49
1417 to     4 Jan 1455		3	Ralph de Cromwell On his death the peerage fell into abeyance. See below for continuation -	1403	4 Jan 1455	52
25 Jul 1461 to     14 Apr 1471	B	1	Sir Humphrey Bourchier Summoned to Parliament as Lord Cromwell 25 Jul 1461 Peerage extinct on his death		14 Apr 1471
9 Jul 1536 to     28 Jul 1540	B	1	Thomas Cromwell Created Baron Cromwell 9 Jul 1536 and Earl of Essex 17 Apr 1540 MP for Taunton 1529-1536; Chancellor of the Exchequer 1533; Lord Chancellor 1535; Lord Privy Seal 1536; KG 1537 He was attainted and executed when his peerages were forfeited	1485	28 Jul 1540	55
18 Dec 1540	B	1	Gregory Cromwell Created Baron Cromwell 18 Dec 1540		4 Jul 1551
4 Jul 1551		2	Henry Cromwell	by 1538	20 Nov 1592
20 Nov 1592		3	Edward Cromwell	1560	27 Apr 1607	46
27 Apr 1607		4	Thomas Cromwell He was created Earl of Ardglass in 1645 into which title this peerage then merged	11 Jun 1594	1653	59
1490 to     30 Aug 1497		4	Maud Stanhope Held to have become Baroness Cromwell (creation of 1375) in 1490. On her death the peerage again fell into abeyance		30 Aug 1497
16 Jul 1923		5	Robert Godfrey Wolseley Bewicke‑Copley Abeyance terminated in his favour 1923 Lord Lieutenant Leicestershire 1949‑1966	23 May 1893	21 Oct 1966	73
21 Oct 1966		6	David Godfrey Bewicke‑Copley For information on the death of this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	29 May 1929	18 Aug 1982	53
18 Aug 1982		7	Godfrey John Bewicke-Copley [Elected hereditary peer 2014-]	4 Mar 1960
CROOK
3 Jul 1947	B	1	Reginald Douglas Crook Created Baron Crook 3 Jul 1947	2 Mar 1901	10 Mar 1989	88
10 Mar 1989		2	Douglas Edwin Crook	19 Nov 1926	18 Jun 2001	74
18 Jun 2001		3	Robert Douglas Edwin Crook	19 May 1955
CROOKSHANK
13 Jan 1956 to     17 Oct 1961	V	1	Harry Frederick Comfort Crookshank Created Viscount Crookshank 13 Jan 1956 MP for Gainsborough 1924‑1956; Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1939‑1943; Postmaster General 1943‑1945; Minister of Health 1951‑1952; Lord Privy Seal 1952‑1955; PC 1939; CH 1955 Peerage extinct on his death	27 May 1893	17 Oct 1961	68
CROSBIE
22 Jul 1776	V[I]	1	William Crosbie, 2nd Baron Brandon Created Viscount Crosbie 30 Nov 1771 and Earl of Glandore 22 Jul 1776 See "Glandore"	May 1716	11 Apr 1781	64
CROSS
19 Aug 1886	V	1	Richard Assheton Cross Created Viscount Cross 19 Aug 1886 MP for Preston 1857‑1862, Lancashire South West 1868‑1885 and Newton 1885‑1886; Home Secretary 1874‑1880 and 1885‑1886; Secretary of State for India 1886‑1892; Lord Privy Seal 1895‑1900; PC 1874	30 May 1823	8 Jan 1914	90
8 Jan 1914		2	Richard Assheton Cross	28 Jan 1882	14 Mar 1932	50
14 Mar 1932 to     5 Dec 2004		3	Assheton Henry Cross Peerage extinct on his death For information on the death of his younger brother, see the note at the foot of this page	7 May 1920	5 Dec 2004	84
CROSS OF CHELSEA
12 Mar 1971 to     4 Aug 1989	B[L]		Sir (Arthur) Geoffrey Neale Cross Created Baron Cross of Chelsea for life 12 Mar 1971 Lord Justice of Appeal 1969‑1971; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1971‑1975; PC 1969 Peerage extinct on his death	1 Dec 1904	4 Aug 1989	84
CROWHURST
11 Jun 1850	V	1	Charles Christopher Pepys, 1st Baron Cottenham Created Viscount Crowhurst and Earl of Cottenham 11 Jun 1850 See "Cottenham"	29 Apr 1781	29 Apr 1851	70
CROWTHER
28 Jun 1968 to     5 Feb 1972	B[L]		Sir Geoffrey Crowther Created Baron Crowther for life 28 Jun 1968 Peerage extinct on his death	13 May 1907	5 Feb 1972	64
CROWTHER-HUNT
9 Jul 1973 to     16 Feb 1987	B[L]		Norman Crowther Hunt Created Baron Crowther-Hunt for life 9 Jul 1973 Peerage extinct on his death	13 Mar 1920	16 Feb 1987	66
CRUDDAS
27 Jan 2021	B[L]		Peter Andrew Cruddas Created Baron Cruddas for life 27 Jan 2021	30 Sep 1953
CUCKNEY
25 Jul 1995 to     30 Oct 2008	B[L]		Sir John Graham Cuckney Created Baron Cuckney for life 25 Jul 1995 Peerage extinct on his death	12 Jul 1925	30 Oct 2008	83
CUDLIPP
8 Jan 1975 to     17 May 1998	B[L]		Sir Hugh Kusman Cudlipp Created Baron Cudlipp for life 8 Jan 1975 Peerage extinct on his death	28 Aug 1913	17 May 1998	84
CULLEN
11 Aug 1642	V[I]	1	Charles Cokayne Created Baron and Viscount Cullen 11 Aug 1642	4 Jul 1602	19 Jun 1661	58
19 Jun 1661		2	Brien Cokayne	12 Sep 1631	Jul 1687	55
Jul 1687		3	Charles Cokayne	15 Nov 1658	30 Dec 1688	30
30 Dec 1688		4	Charles Cokayne	4 Jan 1687	6 Apr 1716	29
6 Apr 1716		5	Charles Cokayne	2 Sep 1710	7 Jun 1802	91
7 Jun 1802 to     11 Aug 1810		6	Borlase Cokayne Peerage extinct on his death	30 Sep 1740	11 Aug 1810	69
CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE
21 Apr 1920	B	1	Sir Brien Ibrican Cokayne Created Baron Cullen of Ashbourne 21 Apr 1920 Governor of the Bank of England 1918‑1920	12 Jul 1864	3 Nov 1932	68
3 Nov 1932		2	Charles Borlase Marsham Cokayne	6 Oct 1912	17 Dec 2000	88
17 Dec 2000		3	Edmund Willoughby Marsham Cokayne	18 May 1916	5 Dec 2016	100
5 Dec 2016		4	Michael John Marsham Cokayne	28 Nov 1950
CULLEN OF WHITEKIRK
17 Jun 2003	B[L]		William Douglas Cullen Created Baron Cullen of Whitekirk for life 17 Jun 2003 PC 1997; KT 2007	18 Nov 1935
CULLODEN
27 Nov 1801	B	1	Adolphus Frederick Created Baron of Culloden, Earl of Tipperary and Duke of Cambridge 27 Nov 1801 See "Cambridge"	24 Feb 1774	17 Jul 1850	76
31 Mar 1928	B	1	Henry William Frederick Albert Created Baron Culloden, Earl of Ulster and Duke of Gloucester 31 Mar 1928 See "Gloucester"	31 Mar 1900	10 Jun 1974	74
CULMORE
12 Jul 1725	B[I]	1	William Bateman Created Baron Culmore and Viscount Bateman 12 Jul 1725 See "Bateman"	c 1695	Dec 1744
CUMBERLAND
18 Jun 1525	E	1	Henry Clifford, 11th Baron de Clifford Created Earl of Cumberland 18 Jun 1525 KG 1537	1493	22 Sep 1542	49
22 Sep 1542		2	Henry Clifford	1517	8 Jan 1570	52
8 Jan 1570		3	George Clifford KG 1592 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	8 Aug 1558	30 Oct 1605	47
30 Oct 1605		4	Francis Clifford MP for Westmorland 1585‑1587 and Yorkshire 1604‑1605; Lord Lieutenant Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmorland 1611‑1639	1559	21 Jan 1641	81
21 Jan 1641 to     11 Dec 1643		5	Henry Clifford MP for Westmorland 1614 and 1621‑1622; Lord Lieutenant Westmorland and York 1642 Peerage extinct on his death	28 Feb 1591	11 Dec 1643	52
24 Jan 1644 to     29 Nov 1682	D	1	Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine Created Earl of Holdernesse and Duke of Cumberland 24 Jan 1644 Lord Lieutenant Berkshire 1670 and Surrey 1675; First Lord of the Admiralty 1673; KG 1642 Peerage extinct on his death	27 Dec 1619	29 Nov 1682	62
9 Apr 1689 to     28 Oct 1708	D	1	George, Prince of Denmark Created Baron Ockingham, Earl of Kendal and Duke of Cumberland 9 Apr 1689 Husband of Queen Anne; KG 1684; PC 1685 Peerages extinct on his death	2 Apr 1653	28 Oct 1708	55
27 Jul 1726 to     31 Oct 1765	D	1	HRH William Augustus Created Baron of Alderney, Viscount Trematon, Earl of Kennington, Marquess of Berkhampstead and Duke of Cumberland 27 Jul 1726 Second son of George II; KG 1730; PC 1746 Peerages extinct on his death For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	15 Apr 1721	31 Oct 1765	44
CUMBERLAND AND STRATHEARN
22 Oct 1766 to     18 Sep 1790	D	1	Henry Frederick Created Earl of Dublin and Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn 22 Oct 1766 PC 1766; KG 1767 For further information on two women who claimed to be Cumberland's daughter and grand-daughter, see the note at the foot of this page Peerages extinct on his death	27 Oct 1745	18 Sep 1790	44
CUMBERLAND AND TEVIOTDALE
24 Apr 1799	D	1	Ernest Augustus Created Earl of Armagh and Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale 24 Apr 1799 Fifth son of George III; KG 1786; KP 1821; King of Hanover 1837‑1851 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	5 Jun 1771	18 Nov 1851	80
18 Nov 1851		2	George Frederick Alexander Charles Augustus King of Hanover 1851‑1866; KG 1835	27 May 1819	12 Jun 1878	59
12 Jun 1878 to     28 Mar 1919		3	Ernest Augustus William Adolphus George Frederick KG 1878 Deprived of his peerages 1919	21 Sep 1845	14 Nov 1923	78
CUMBERLEGE
18 May 1990	B[L]		Julia Frances Cumberlege Created Baroness Cumberlege for life 18 May 1990	27 Jan 1943
CUMRA
14 Apr 1703	B[S]	1	Sir James Stuart Created Lord Mount Stuart, Cumra and Inchmarnock, Viscount of Kingarth and Earl of Bute 14 Apr 1703 See "Bute"		4 Jun 1710
CUNLIFFE
14 Dec 1914	B	1	Walter Cunliffe Created Baron Cunliffe 14 Dec 1914 Governor of the Bank of England 1913‑1918	4 Dec 1855	6 Jan 1920	64
6 Jan 1920		2	Rolf Cunliffe	13 May 1899	24 Nov 1963	64
24 Nov 1963		3	Roger Cunliffe	12 Jan 1932
CUNNINGHAM OF FELLING
27 Jun 2005	B[L]		John Anderson Cunningham Created Baron Cunningham of Felling for life 27 Jun 2005 MP for Whitehaven 1970‑1983 and Copeland 1983‑2005; Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food 1997‑1998; Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1998‑1999; PC 1993	4 Aug 1939
CUNNINGHAM OF HYNDHOPE
15 Sep 1945 26 Jan 1946 to     12 Jun 1963	B V	1 1	Sir Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st baronet Created Baron Cunningham of Hyndhope 15 Sep 1945 and Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope 26 Jan 1946 Admiral of the Fleet 1943; KT 1945; OM 1946 Peerages extinct on his death	7 Jan 1883	12 Jun 1963	80
CURRIE
25 Jan 1899 to     12 May 1906	B	1	Sir Philip Henry Wodehouse Currie Created Baron Currie 25 Jan 1899 PC 1894 Peerage extinct on his death	13 Oct 1834	12 May 1906	71
CURRIE OF MARYLEBONE
1 Oct 1996	B[L]		David Anthony Currie Created Baron Currie of Marylebone for life 1 Oct 1996	9 Dec 1946
CURRY OF KIRKHARLE
13 Oct 2011	B[L]		Sir Donald Thomas Younger Curry Created Baron Curry of Kirkharle for life 13 Oct 2011	4 Apr 1944
CURZON OF KEDLESTON
11 Nov 1898 2 Nov 1911 28 Jun 1921 to     20 Mar 1925	B[I] E M	1 1 1	George Nathaniel Curzon Created Baron Curzon of Kedleston 11 Nov 1898 (the last Irish peerage), Baron Ravensdale, Viscount Scarsdale and Earl Curzon of Kedleston 2 Nov 1911 and Earl of Kedleston and Marquess Curzon of Kedleston 28 Jun 1921 MP for Southport 1886‑1889; Viceroy of India 1898‑1905; Lord Privy Seal 1915‑1916; Lord President of the Council 1916‑1919 and 1924‑1925; Foreign Secretary 1919‑1924; PC 1895; KG 1916 On his death the Barony of 1898, the Earldom of 1911 and the creations of 1921 became extinct. The Barony of Ravensdale descended to his daughter and the Viscountcy of Scarsdale descended to his nephew - see those titles For information on his first wife, see the note at the foot of this page	11 Jan 1859	20 Mar 1925	66
CURZON OF PENN
13 Aug 1794 27 Feb 1802	B V	1 1	Assheton Curzon Created Baron Curzon of Penn 13 Aug 1794 and Viscount Curzon of Penn 27 Feb 1802 MP for Clitheroe 1754‑1780 and 1792‑1794	2 Feb 1730	21 Mar 1820	90
21 Mar 1820		2	Richard William Penn Curzon‑Howe He was created Earl Howe in 1821 with which title this peerage then merged
CUSHENDUN
7 Nov 1927 to     12 Oct 1934	B	1	Ronald John McNeill Created Baron Cushendun 7 Nov 1927 MP for St. Augustines 1911‑1918 and Canterbury 1918‑1927; Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1925‑1927; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1927‑1929; PC 1924 Peerage extinct on his death	30 Apr 1861	12 Oct 1934	73
CUTTS OF GOWRAN
12 Dec 1690 to     25 Jan 1707	B[I]	1	John Cutts Created Baron Cutts of Gowran 12 Dec 1690 MP for Cambridgeshire 1693‑1702 and Newport (IOW) 1702‑1707; PC [I] 1705 Peerage extinct on his death	c 1661	25 Jan 1707

	William Hepburn Cozens‑Hardy, 2nd Baron Cozens‑Hardy
	On 27 May 1924, the Daily Mail reported the death of Lord Cozens-Hardy, as shown hereunder:-
	Lord Cozens-Hardy, of Gunthorpe Hall, Norfolk, was killed yesterday afternoon in a motor‑car accident near Starnberg (Upper Bavaria), 17 miles from Munich. At a sharp bend on the road, Lord Cozens‑Hardy, who was driving, put on the brakes suddenly and the car turned turtle. The other two occupants of the car, a German businessman and the chauffeur, escaped with minor injuries. Lord Cozens‑Hardy was crushed beneath the car and terribly injured. He died a few minutes after, without recovering consciousness. The body is being brought here [Munich] tonight.
	Lord Cozens-Hardy, who was 56, succeeded his father, the first lord, and a former Master of the Rolls, in 1920. A Chancery K.C. in active practice at that time, Lord Cozens‑Hardy, after his accession to the title, was seen only rarely in the courts.
	There was a tiny comedy of errors when the peerage devolved on him. He had not taken his seat in the Upper House, and, as the writ had not been moved for a new election in South Norfolk, Mr. William Cozens‑Hardy, M.P., as he still remained, found that, though, in a sense a member of either House, he was for the moment excluded from both.
	The alleged "Curse of the Cravens"
	When the 7th Earl of Craven died in 1983, the newspapers were quick to seize upon the alleged "Curse of the Cravens". The story goes that hundreds of years ago (one paper says 700) one of the ancestors of the Craven family made a servant girl pregnant. Her mother cursed the family, the curse stating that all boys of the Craven family would die young. Another version of the curse is more specific, with all boys of the family condemned to die before their mothers.
	Whether the curse actually exists is a moot point, but the reports of the 7th Earl's death in 1983 make special mention that the Earl "lived in fear of a curse that reputedly causes all the males of his family to die young". One wonders whether the curse is to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy in that the person is so convinced that he cannot escape his fate that he becomes resigned to it with inevitable fatal consequences, in the same manner that Australian aborigines believe that if a "kurdaitcha" man undertakes the ceremony of "pointing the bone" the person at whom the bone was pointed will surely die shortly thereafter.
	An examination of the ages at which the Barons Craven, and later the Earls of Craven, died, does however reveal that the average age at death is quite low, and is even lower for those deaths which have occurred in the last 145 years. Commencing with the sons of the 2nd Earl, the following dates are interesting, when viewed in the light of the prediction that the Craven sons would die before their mothers:-
	* The eldest son of the 2nd Earl, known by the courtesy title of Viscount Uffington, died at the age of 26 in April 1865 during the lifetime of his father. His mother died in May 1901.
	* The second son of the 2nd Earl, who became the 3rd Earl in 1866, died in December 1883 aged 42, again while his mother was still alive (see above).
	* The 4th Earl died in July 1921 [for further details of his death see below] at the age of 52. His mother died in November 1924.
	* The 5th Earl died in September 1932, aged 35. His mother died in May 1961.
	* The 6th Earl died in January 1965 aged 47. His mother died in September 1974.
	* The 7th Earl died in October 1983, aged 26. His mother died 26 June 2011, aged 95.
	* The 8th Earl, brother of the 7th Earl, died in August 1990 (see above).
	If we ignore the question of dying before their mother, and expanding the listing to include all sons of the various Earls in the last 200 years, we find that:-
	* The 1st Earl had three sons - the 2nd Earl who died at age 57, and two other sons who died at the ages of 25 and 52
	* The 2nd Earl had four sons - Viscount Uffington and the 3rd Earl are already noticed above while the remaining two sons died at 75 and 16
	* The 3rd Earl also had four sons - the 4th Earl mentioned above, and three other sons who died at the ages of 89, 2 months and 30
	* The 4th and 5th Earls each had an only son who became the 5th and 6th Earls respectively
	* The 6th Earl had two sons, who became the 7th and 8th Earls (see above), the 7th Earl being succeeded by his brother as his son, Tommy Nicholson, is illegitimate.
	Only two sons of the various Earls, therefore, during the last 200 years, have reached what might be called a reasonable age. It is also interesting to note that the 4th, 7th and 8th Earls all died what might be termed 'violent' deaths. All in all, one might be forgiven for believing in both the existence and efficacy of the alleged curse, but I leave the reader to form his or her own opinion.
	Some notes on the various Earls:-
	Craven A cigarettes
	Smokers of a certain age will probably recall that Craven A cigarettes were very popular at one time. Their filters were 'cork tips' and I am bound to say that, although I once smoked almost any legal substance, I always drew the line at Craven A - they were horrible. The brand was apparently named after the Earls of Craven.
	William George Robert Craven, 4th Earl of Craven
	The following report of the death of the 4th Earl appeared in The Times of 11 July 1921:-
	A gloom was cast over Cowes to-day by the news that Lord* Craven, a well-known member of the Royal Yacht Squadron, had been drowned. He arrived off Cowes only yesterday on a cruise in his 63‑ton yawl Sylvia.
	Lord Craven, with Lord Ebury, joined the yacht at Southampton yesterday afternoon, and on arrival at Cowes Lord Craven went ashore and visited the Royal Yacht Squadron, where he spent the evening with other members and was in the best of health and spirits. Later in the evening he returned to his yacht in the motor launch, which he helped the crew to haul up.
	The weather being still warm, Lord Craven remained on the deck of the yacht, which was lying about half a mile from the squadron in the roadstead. For some time he was talking with the captain, who left him there smoking just after midnight, when he and his crew turned in for the night.
	At 8.30 this morning when the valet went to Lord Craven's cabin he found that he was missing and that his bed had not been slept in. His yachting cap was found in the saloon. It is believed that he had walked to the stern of the yacht and either accidentally stumbled or was seized with illness and fell overboard. No trace of his body could be seen, but after a search lasting all the morning it was found this afternoon in the sea at Gurnard Bay, about two miles to the westward. It was brought to Cowes mortuary to await an inquest.
	People living on the green heard cries during the night, which apparently came from the direction of Egypt Point, about a mile from where the yacht was lying, but no-one thought they came from anyone in distress. It is conjectured that Lord Craven, having fallen overboard, attempted to swim to shore, but finding he could not do so, cried for help. He was understood to be a very good swimmer.
	William George Bradley Craven, 5th Earl of Craven
	The 5th Earl became somewhat of a celebrity in 1926 when he, together with Vera, Countess Cathcart, attempted to enter the United States. The following report of his subsequent death appeared in the Chicago Daily Tribune on 17 September 1932:-
	The fifth earl of Craven, whose escapades with Vera, countess of Cathcart, stirred up a storm which nearly resulted in an international incident between the United States and Great Britain in 1926, died here [Pau, France] today at the age of 35 [the cause of death was peritonitis].
	The incident of 1926 began when the countess of Cathcart was barred from the United States by immigration authorities because she had been divorced on statutory grounds. She was accused of "moral turpitude". Her husband when he won the divorce in 1922 had named the earl of Craven as co-respondent. Eighteen months later the countess and the earl lived together in South Africa.
	The countess fought the expulsion order, declaring that if she were barred, the earl should also be refused admittance on the same grounds. The earl already had been admitted. The case was taken to the federal courts and also aired on the floor of the United States senate and in the British house of commons.
	Immigration authorities, wishing to question the earl, issued an order for his arrest. He fled to Montreal. When she learned of his flight, the countess branded him a "coward". Later the countess won her fight and was admitted to the United States.
	She sold her play, "Ashes of Love", and performed in it under Earl Carroll's management for a few nights before it closed a failure. Countess Vera gained further notoriety during this period when she was present at Earl Carroll's famous "bathtub party", at which a show girl bathed in a tub of wine while the men present passed by in line and drank of the wine. Carroll was sentenced to prison for this episode. [Carroll (1893-1948) was a well-known theatrical producer and director until he was killed in a plane crash.]
	Born July 13, 1897, the earl of Craven succeeded to the title of his father in 1921. He had one of the most remarkable careers of the British nobility. He was disabled through the loss of his right leg and permanent disability in his left arm in the war and later became bankrupt and was disinherited.
	William Robert Bradley Craven, 6th Earl of Craven
	The 6th Earl of Craven married Gwendoline Irene Meyrick on 3 May 1939. Gwendoline was the daughter of the notorious "queen of the nightclubs" Kate Meyrick, whose other two daughters married the 26th Baron de Clifford and the 14th Earl of Kinnoull.
	In the following August the Earl petitioned the Courts for the annulment of his marriage to Gwendoline, who in turn cross-petitioned for the restitution of her conjugal rights. The petitions were heard in June 1940. The following (edited) report appeared in The Times of 14 June 1940:-
	By his petition dated August 4, 1939, Lord Craven sought the annulment of the marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without his consent. He alleged that at the time when the marriage was celebrated he was in such a condition of mind and body through alcohol poisoning that he was unaware of the nature or quality of the ceremony of marriage with Lady Craven, or of the fact that he was present at a marriage ceremony or taking part in the same.
	Lady Craven, who before the marriage was Gwendoline Irene Meyrick, denied the allegations, and pleaded that she was lawfully married to Lord Craven. By her cross-petition … Lady Craven pleaded that Lord Craven had left her without cause in May, 1939, and had not returned to her and had refused to render her conjugal rights. She prayed for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Lord Craven denied the allegations, and denied he was lawfully married to Lady Craven.
	Mr. Justice Hodson, giving judgment, said that the parting took place on May 4, the day after the ceremony. Lord Craven, through his advisors, repudiated the marriage, and on July 14 for the first time it was claimed that there had been no marriage.
	Lord Craven had been described by medical men who examined him as being unstable and impulsive and of a vain disposition. He suffered from asthma, the significance of which was that he was sensitive to alcoholic poisoning. He had also had an accident followed by concussion, which was of importance.
	On the night before the marriage Lord Craven arrived in the small hours of the morning at the night club with which Lady Craven was concerned, having already drunk a good deal at other places. He drank a good deal more at the club, partly in the company of his wife-to-be, and marriage was discussed. The subject had been mentioned before between them. The end of the story was that they were married that morning after a licence had been obtained by the wife-to-be.
	Lord Craven had seen no member of his family, nor any friend, from the time he left the night club until he was married. During that time he was in the company of his wife-to-be and her sisters. He (his Lordship) was asked to say that what happened was an outrage, that those women had got hold of the young man and that everything which he did thereafter was done under their guidance and not of his own accord at all, he being soaked in drink, unstable to start with, and not fit to give his assent to marriage or anything else.
	During the night before the marriage, or in the early hours of the morning, Lord Craven was seen by a number of people at the club and was behaving perfectly normally. Nobody would say that he was drunk. There was no doubt that when marriage was discussed Lord Craven himself was active in making arrangements for the ceremony. Lord Craven said now he did not remember very much about it, but he did not profess entirely to have forgotten what took place.
	The marriage ceremony took place that morning. Lord Craven signed a form. His signature on that form was not first‑class, but it did not compare unfavourably with other signatures of his. The service was in the Church of England form, with which Lord Craven was not familiar, he being a Roman Catholic. The question of the ring arose and Lord Craven produced a signet ring. The vicar rejected that and then a sister of the bride produced her wedding ring. Lord Craven gave the responses, some of which would not be easy to give if a person were acting automatically, and the bride and bridegroom signed their names in the register.
	The vicar did not notice anything except that when the parties were going away the groom moved as though he were in a dream. "He looked as if he were half asleep." His Lordship [the Judge] said that Lord Craven had been up all night and had had a great deal to drink.
	His Lordship stated the evidence as to the subsequent movements of the parties. Medical witnesses, he continued, had described the effects of alcoholic poisoning as being of two stages. One was the impairment of judgment, and the other was staggering and thickness of speech indicating lack of coordination. The case for Lord Craven was that he was in the first stage, because he had taken a large quantity of alcohol over a long period. In that stage, it was suggested, his memory had gone and he did not know what he was doing.
	It was further suggested that Lord Craven was acting under the wicked influence of the wife. He (the judge) was not prepared to find any such thing. All the evidence went to show that he was acting very much of his own volition without being spurred on by anyone.
	That Lord Craven's judgment was impaired there could be no doubt, but the question of degree had to be considered when one had to determine whether his judgment was so impaired that he did not know what he was doing. He (the judge) was quite unable to find that the husband had discharged the burden of proving either that he did not know what he was doing or that he did not consent to the marriage.
	His Lordship dismissed Lord Craven's petition and granted Lady Craven a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
	Thomas Robert Douglas Craven, 7th Earl of Craven
	From The Times of 3 November 1983:-
	The seventh Earl of Craven, whose life was spent under the threat of an ancient curse, shot himself after years of depression, an inquest was told yesterday.
	A curse that all male Cravens would die young was put on the family seven centuries ago after an ancestor made a servant pregnant.
	Lord Craven, aged 26, was found lying in a pool of blood at his Sussex manor house on October 22, with a 12‑bore shotgun at his side. The last three earls have all died prematurely.
	He had been treated for schizophrenia and had tried to commit suicide four times, the Eastbourne inquest heard.
	His mother, Lady Craven, found his body at Peelings Manor, Hankham, East Sussex … the Coroner recorded the verdict that Lord Craven killed himself while the balance of his mind was disturbed.
	At his death, the 7th Earl left an illegitimate son, and he was therefore succeeded by his brother whose death in a car crash in 1990 did nothing to dispel the alleged curse.
	Alexander Lindsay, 4th Earl of Crawford ('Old Beardie')
	The 4th Earl of Crawford was the most formidable power in Scotland during the middle years of the 15th century. He was a regular guest at Glamis Castle, where one night on one of his visits and after an evening of heavy drinking, he demanded a game of cards. By this time it was late, and the Sabbath was dawning; as a result, no one was prepared to play with him. Getting progressively more aggressive, Crawford determined that the Sabbath would not interrupt his pleasures and swore that he would even play the Devil himself. No sooner had he said this than a tall man dressed entirely in black entered the room and the Earl, pleased to have a playing partner, took him into another room where they proceeded to play.
	There was much swearing and stamping of feet within the room, and there are some accounts of the servants' curiosity. One tried to peep into the room through the keyhole, but was blinded by a bolt of lightning. The Earl stormed out of the room, raging at the servant for this breach of his privacy. When he turned back to re-enter the room, the man in black had gone, taking the Earl's soul with him. Five years later, the man in black reappeared and the Earl died, reclaimed by the Devil according to the story.
	It is said that visitors to Glamis Castle can hear, behind one of the walls of the Castle crypt, the sounds of rolling dice, swearing and the stamping of feet, the sounds of the Earl playing until the Day of Judgment.
	The Crawford Peerage Claim 1809‑1839
	The following account of the claim is taken from an anonymously written book titled Celebrated Claimants Ancient and Modern published by Chatto and Windus, London, 1873.
	In 1808, George Lindsay Crawfurd, twenty-second Earl of Crawfurd and sixth Earl of Lindsay, died without issue, and his vast estates descended to his sister, Lady Mary Crawford. After the death of the earl various claims were advanced to the peerage, one of them being preferred by a person of the name of John Crawfurd, who came from Dungannon, in the north of Ireland. When this claimant arrived at Ayr, in January 1809, he gave himself out as a descendant of the Hon. James Lindsay Crawfurd, a younger son of the family, who had taken refuge in Ireland from the persecutions of 1666‑1680. At first he took up his abode at the inn of James Anderson, and from his host and a weaver named Wood he received a considerable amount of information respecting the family history. From Ayr he proceeded to visit Kilbirnie Castle, once the residence of the great knightly family of Crawfurd. The house had been destroyed by fire during the lifetime of Lady Mary's grandfather, and had not been rebuilt - the family taking up their residence on their Fifeshire estates. At the time of the fire, however, many family papers and letters had been saved, and had been stored away in an old cabinet, which was placed in an out-house. To these Mr. Crawfurd obtained access, and found among them many letters written by James Lindsay Crawfurd, whose descendant he pretended to be. He appropriated them and produced them when the fitting time came. At Kilbirnie he also introduced himself to John Montgomerie of Ladeside, a man well acquainted with the family story and all the vicissitudes of the Crawfords; and one who was disposed to believe any plausible tale. The farmer, crediting the pretender's story, spread it abroad among the villagers, and they in turn fell into ecstasies over the idea of a poor man like themselves arriving at an earldom, rebuilding the ancient house of Kilbirnie, and restoring the old glories of the place. Their enthusiasm was turned to good account. The claimant was very poor, and stood in need of money to prosecute his claim, and he made no secret of his poverty or his necessities, and promised large returns to those who would help him in his time of need. "Farms", we are told, "were to be given on long leases at moderate rents; one was to be a factor, another chamberlain, and many were to be converted from being hewers of wood and drawers of water to what they esteemed the less laborious, and therefore more honourable, posts of butlers and bakers, and body servants of all descriptions". These cheering prospects, of course, depended upon the immediate faith which was displayed, and the amount of assistance which was at once forthcoming. Therefore, each hopeful believer exerted himself to the utmost, and "poor peasants and farmers, cottagers and their masters, threw their stakes into the claimant's lucky-bag, from which they were afterwards to draw 'all prizes and no blanks'". Men of loftier position, also, were not averse to speculate upon the chances of this newly-discovered heir. Poor John Montgomerie gave him every penny he had saved, and every penny he could borrow, and after mortgaging his little property, was obliged to flee to America from his duns, where, it is said, he died. His son Peter, who succeeded to Ladeside, also listened to the seductive voice of the claimant, until ruin came upon him, and he was compelled to compound with his creditors.
	In due time the pretender to the Crawford peerage instituted judicial proceedings. His advocates brought forward some very feasible parole evidence; but they mainly rested their case upon the documents which had been discovered in the old cabinet at Kilbirnie. These letters, when they were originally discovered, had been written on the first and third pages; but in the interim the second pages had been filled up in an exact imitation of the old hand with matter skilfully contrived to support the pretensions of the new-comer. In these interpolations the dead Crawfurd was made to describe his position and circumstances in Ireland, his marriage, the births of his children, and his necessities, in a manner which could leave no doubt as to the rightful claims of the pretender. Unfortunately for his cause, he refused to pay his accomplices the exorbitant price which they demanded, and they, without hesitation, made offers to Lady Mary, into the hands of whose agents they confided the forged and vitiated letters. The result was that a charge of forgery was brought against the claimant, and he and his chief abettor, James Bradley, were both brought to trial before the High Court of Justiciary, in February 1812, and were sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. This result was obtained by the acceptance of the evidence of Fanning, one of the forgers, as king's evidence. While under sentence the claimant wrote a sketch of his life ["Sketch of the Life of John Lindsay Crawfurd, Esq., containing a full and impartial account of his claim to the title and estates of George, Earl of Crawfurd and Lindsay. With an account of his trial for forgery #&8230 Written by himself" Dairy, 1812] which was printed at Dairy, in Ayrshire, and was published before the sentence was carried into execution. After some delay the sham earl was shipped off to Botany Bay, and arrived in New South Wales in 1813. Many persons in Scotland continued under the belief that he had been harshly treated, and had fallen a victim to the perjured statements of witnesses who were suborned by Lady Mary Crawford. It was not disputed that the documents which had been put in evidence really were forged; but it was suggested that the forgery had been accomplished without his knowledge, in order to accomplish his ruin. Public feeling was aroused in his favour, and he was regarded not only as an innocent and injured man, but as the rightful heir of the great family whose honours and estates he sought.
	During his servitude in Australia, John Lindsay Crawfurd contrived to ingratiate himself with MacQuarrie [sic - Macquarie], the governor of New South Wales, and got part of his punishment remitted, returning to England in 1820. He immediately recommenced proceedings for the recovery of the Crawfurd honours; and, as his unexpected return seemed to imply that he had been unjustly transported, his friends took encouragement from this circumstance, and again came forward with subscriptions and advances. Many noblemen and gentlemen, believing him to be injured, contributed liberally to his support and to the cost of the proceedings which he had begun. At last the case came, - and came under the best guidance - before the Lords Committee of Privileges, to which it had been referred by the king. Lord Brougham was counsel in the cause, and he publicly expressed his opinion that it was extremely well-founded. Many of the claimant's adherents, however, were deterred from proceeding further in the matter by the unfavourable report of two trustworthy commissioners who had been appointed to investigate the affair in Scotland. On the other hand, Mr. Nugent Bell, Mr. William Kaye, and Sir Frederick Pollock, with a host of eminent legal authorities, predicted certain success. Thus supported, the pretender assumed the rôle of Earl of Crawfurd, and actually voted as earl at an election of Scotch peers at Holyrood. Unfortunately for all parties, the claimant died before a decision could be given either for or against him. His son, however, inheriting the father's pretensions, and also apparently his faculty for raising money, contrived to find supporters, and carried on the case. Maintaining his father's truthfulness, he declared that his ancestor, the Hon. James Lindsay Crawfurd, had settled in Ireland, and that he had died there between 1765 and 1770, leaving a family, of which he was the chief representative. On the other hand, Lord Glasgow, who had succeeded by this time to the estates, insisted that the scion of the family who was supposed to have gone to Ireland, and from whom the pretender traced his descent, had in reality died in London in 1745, and had been buried in the churchyard of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. It was finally proved that a record remained of the death of James Lindsay Crawfurd in London, as stated, and 120 genuine letters were produced in his handwriting bearing a later date than that year. The decision of the House of Lords was - "That from the facts now before us we are satisfied that any further inquiry is hopeless and unnecessary." This opinion was given in 1839, and since that time no further steps have been taken to advance the claim. Strange to say, Lord Glasgow allowed the body of the original claimant to be interred in the family mausoleum; and it has been more than suggested that if John Lindsay Crawfurd was not the man that he represented himself to be, he was at least an illegitimate offshoot of the same noble house, and that had he been less pertinacious in advancing his claims to the earldom, he might have ended his days more happily.
	Alexander William Crawford Lindsay, 25th Earl of Crawford and 8th Earl of Balcarres
	A man who was infinitely more famous in death than he ever was in life #&8230;
	The 25th Earl died in Florence, Italy in December 1880. His body was embalmed by an Italian chemist, laid in an Italian-wood shell and sheathed in lead. To make doubly sure, two further wooden coffins were added. With these elaborate precautions completed, the Earl's body began its long journey home.
	Traditionally, the Earls of Crawford and Balcarres were buried at Haigh Hall in Lancashire, but the vault was full. A new mortuary chapel had just been finished at Dunecht (12 miles west of Aberdeen) and was as yet unoccupied. The new chapel was solidly constructed of granite, and the only entrance to the burial crypt was down a flight of eight steps leading from outside the chapel. With the burial ceremony over, workmen sealed the entrance to the crypt with four massive granite slabs and filled the crevices between the slabs with cement.
	One Sunday morning in May 1881, the new Earl's housekeeper was walking near the chapel when she smelled a strange aromatic perfume arising from the crypt. In the next few days, others remarked on the odd smell so persistently that the new Earl ordered an inspection. Workmen found a gap between the granite slabs which they attributed to a natural subsidence of the soil and they further attributed the strange smell to decaying flowers within the vault. They straightened the slabs, filled the cracks with cement, covered the whole entrance with soil and planted it with shrubs.
	In September 1881, Mr Yeats, the Earl's family solicitor, received a mysterious note at his Aberdeen office. "Dear Sir", the letter ran, "the remains of the late Earl of Crawford are not beneath the chapel at Dunecht, as you believe. The scent of flowers ascending from the crypt will, on investigation, prove to be something else." The letter was signed "Nabob".
	Yeats contacted the builder who had carried out the inspection of the vault. The builder reassured Yeats, who as a result dismissed the letter as a grisly practical joke without bothering to inform the Earl.
	Early in December 1881, some tradesmen working at Dunecht House noticed that the soil covering the entrance of the crypt had been tampered with and told the Earl. He summoned Yeats, who, recalling the earlier note, called in the police. Inspection left no doubt that the tomb had been violated. Picks and shovels, stolen from a nearby toolshed, littered the lawn. Three sets of footprints, made by hobnailed boots and all different, showed in the mud. One of the granite slabs had been moved and was propped up by a piece of wood, leaving a gap of 18 inches. The raiders had chosen an ideal time, as the break‑in had occurred the night before, when a sudden storm had effectively covered any noise.
	With grim foreboding, the police entered the crypt where they found the wooden coffins, the lead coffin and the Italian-wood shell strewn about the floor, but there was no sign of the body of the Earl. The mystery of the strange smell which saturated the air of the vault was, however, solved; it came from the aromatic wood of the shell made in Italy.
	The police poured every available man into Dunecht and combed the countryside for clues. In the meantime Yeats believed that the mysterious "Nabob" held the answer. He inserted notices in the agony columns of the British press asking Nabob to come forward, without result. He then, on his own initiative, offered a £50 reward to the writer of the note if he came forward. This time, Nabob's greed got the better of his discretion. He wrote to Yeats assuring him that the Earl's body was still in the Dunecht area. He refused, however, to disclose its hiding place until the 'desperadoes' who had carried it off were brought to justice. He had no wish, he said, to be murdered by them or to be suspected by the police as an accomplice.
	A few days later, the Government offered a reward of £500 and a free pardon to anyone, not being the guilty party, who gave information leading to the arrest of the grave-robber(s). From all over Britain letters poured in, giving thousands of hiding places for the Earl's body. Some writers claimed they had seen visions; others swore that they had helped carry the body under threats. One letter made out such a good case against two Aberdeen men, Thomas Kirkwood and John Philip, that the police arrested and charged them with the crime. Only watertight alibis saved them. When all the letters had been sifted, the police concluded that Nabob was the only person who had real knowledge of the crime, but he remained discreetly silent.
	Public interest in the case was waning when, five months later, an Aberdeen man named George Machray, a gamekeeper, came forward with some fresh information. As a result, the police arrested a man named Charles Soutar, a rat-catcher who supplemented his income by poaching, mainly on the Dunecht estate. No sooner had he been taken into custody than he confessed he was "Nabob".
	His story was that one night in April 1881 he was poaching deer near Dunecht when he heard a rustling of bushes. Thinking the gamekeepers were looking for him, he fled but he tripped and fell. Before he could rise, two men with blackened faces pinned him to the ground. As he lay helpless, two more men who spoke 'like English gentlemen' loomed out of the dark. One of the newcomers put a pistol to his head and seemed bent on killing him until one of his original assailants told the armed man 'It's all right, it's only the rat‑catcher on a poaching venture'. When dawn broke, Soutar crept back into the woods, where he saw a carefully camouflaged mound. He dug into it with his fingers and was horrified to find the embalmed body of a man, wrapped in a blanket. The makeshift grave reeked of an aromatic perfume.
	Based on Soutar's story, a party of police went to Dumbrock Wood where they found the body exactly where Soutar had said it was. Although Soutar stuck doggedly to his story of the men in the woods, the police found it too hard to believe and charged him with breaking into the crypt.
	Soutar was tried in October 1882 before Lord Craighill in the High Court in Edinburgh. He pleaded 'not guilty'. At his trial, evidence began to pile up inexorably against Soutar. Witness after witness testified that he had discussed the disappearance of the Earl's body long before anyone but the body-snatcher could have known about it.
	Soutar's counsel put the case for the defence simply. His story of the black-faced men was true. Why, he asked, would a guilty man draw attention to the crime by writing the 'Nabob' letter and persistently discussing the subject with half‑a‑dozen witnesses? Plainly, Soutar was an innocent man - a man who feared for his life, but was determined to keep interest in the crime alive until the real criminals were brought to justice.
	The Solicitor General for Scotland, Alexander Asher, in his speech for the Crown, left the defence's argument threadbare. The crime could only have been committed by someone who knew Dunecht intimately and none knew it better than the self-confessed poacher, Soutar. Why had Soutar persistently called attention to the crime? Simple, said Asher; there could be only two reasons for the ghoulish theft - either to hold the Earl's family to ransom, or in the hope that a reward would be offered. In either case, so long as the theft of the body went undiscovered, the crime itself was useless. When the crypt had been re‑sealed without suspicion, Soutar was forced to write the Nabob note, which Yeats had ignored. In desperation, said Asher, Soutar had then been forced to make a second raid on the tomb and prop up the granite slab so that there could be no doubt that the vault had been violated.
	After retiring for a mere 25 minutes, the jury found Soutar guilty and he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude.
	It seems to me that there are a number of unanswered questions in this case - is it likely that Soutar, who does not seem to have been over-endowed with intelligence, hatched the whole plot on his own? If he did, how did he single-handedly manage to pry up the massive granite slabs? - he was reported to have been a small, weedy man. In any event, the fact that three different sets of footprints had been found after the second raid was never explained.
	The special remainder to the Barony of Cremorne 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 Thomas, Viscount Cremorne, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, the Dignity of Baron Cremorne, of Dawson‑Grove, in the County of Monaghan; and in Default of such Issue, Richard Dawson, Esq; Nephew of the said Thomas Viscount Cremorne, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten.
	Robert Crichton, 8th Lord Crichton of Sanquhar
	The 8th Lord Crichton of Sanquhar was hanged for the murder of John Turner, a fencing‑master who had put out Crichton's eye in a fencing match five years earlier. The following lengthy account is taken from a series entitled Historic Tragedies of London Life by W.W. Hutchings, and which was serialized in the Adelaide Advertiser. This particular instalment appeared on 3 August 1901:-
	Among the noblemen who followed James VI [of Scotland] to England to share the good things of which Queen Elizabeth's successor had the disposal, was Lord Sanquhar, the head of an ancient and honourable family which had held the rank of baron for some 300 years. According to Sir Edward Coke, who drew up a report of the strange events now to be related, the baron was "a man of great courage and wit, endeared with many excellent gifts, as well natural as acquired". This great lawyer was the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas at the time these things fell out, and no doubt had excellent opportunities of forming a correct estimate of Sanquhar's character; yet it is not easy to believe that a man of true courage could ever have been guilty of the conduct to which he allowed himself to descend.
	In 1607, four years after James Stuart came south, Lord Sanquhar was visiting at Lord Norreys' house in Oxfordshire, and there met a fencing‑master from Whitefriars, John Turner by name, who had been engaged to entertain the company with his feats of skill and to cross foils with any who chose to enter the lists against him.
	Among those who challenged him was young Sanquhar, and, most unfortunately, in the course of the fencing Turner struck his antagonist in the eye and thrust the ball out of its socket. The eye must have been put back, for Sanquhar himself afterwards spoke of suffering less pain in it after a while, and said that for at least two years he hoped for complete recovery.
	The injury, however, was a serious one. For many days the sufferer's life was in danger, and in the end he completely lost the use of the damaged organ. According to Wilson, a contemporary historian, Sanquhar brought the punishment upon himself by affronting the fencing‑master and maliciously setting himself to degrade him in the eyes of his patrons, so provoking Turner that he determined to make him smart for his arrogance and ill‑will, without intending, however, to punish him so severely as he actually did. This version of the affair is unsupported, and is, on the face of it, improbable to the point of incredibility. Even if Sanquhar was guilty of provocative behaviour, of which there is no proof, it is not to be believed that the hurt inflicted upon him was aught but pure accident. If the young nobleman was really seeking to humiliate Turner in the eyes of his pupils and patrons, it was only playing into his hands to inflict upon him an injury for which the only excuse that could be urged was lack of skill in the fencing‑master. Sanquhar himself afterwards protested that on taking up his foil he explained he was doing so only as a learner, and not as one that would contend with a master in his own profession, and requested therefore that he should be treated "as a scholar", which meant that the face should be exempted from attack; and I know of no reason for doubting this statement. To accept it, however, is only to involve Lord Sanquhar in the greater condemnation for his subsequent behaviour. Had he really treated the fencing‑master with scorn and contumely, he might have been excused for believing that the wound in the eye was inflicted wilfully and in resentment. But after the explanation he gave at the taking up of the foils, the idea that the injury was intentional ought never to have entered his mind. This seems to have been the view generally taken of the affair; and Turner's expression of regret was accepted as sincere by everyone except the sufferer himself.
	Unhappily Lord Sanquhar appears from the first to have suspected malicious intent, and he brooded over the thought until it ripened into a certainty, and the desire for revenge became a fierce obsession. If Wilson, the contemporary writer already spoken of, could be believed, the craving for vengeance was awakened in his soul by a casual remark of Henry the Fourth of France. While the Scottish noble was at the French Court the King is said to have asked him how he lost his eye. "It was done with a sword", was his vague reply, for he was willing to have it thought that the wound was received in more dignified circumstances than in a bout at the foils with a common fencing‑master.
	Thereupon the King enquired, "Does the man live?" which question, says Wilson, in his uncouth style, "gave an end to the discourse, but was the beginner of a strange confusion in his working fancy". 'Tis a pretty story, but has, I fear, no basis in fact. Lord Sanquhar himself, though afterwards he went minutely into his motives and feelings, breathed not a syllable about this conversation, and, had it actually taken place, it is incredible that he should have missed such an opportunity of representing his vengeance as having been instigated by a monarch, and a monarch so renowned for chivalry as Henri Quatre.
	When, two years after the accident, Lord Sanquhar came back from France, he found that Turner was at Greenwich Palace, "playing", to use the expression of those days, before King James and his father‑in‑law, the King of Denmark; and so blind, according to his own account, had his rage against the man become, that he at once made up his mind to seek him out and run him through, though well aware that to commit such an outrage at the Court would be treated as a serious aggravation of his crime. He failed, however, to find his quarry, and, learning that he had gone to London, he followed him thither, but again missed him; and the first news he could get of him in town was that, by a strange coincidence, he had gone to Lord Norreys' place, where the original mischief was done. For the time, therefore, Lord Sanquhar laid aside his purpose, and took a journey to Scotland.
	The change of scene, however, did not rid him of his murderous purpose, and on finding himself again in London, he once more set about tracking down his prey.
	He now resolved upon a change of tactics. Until this time, if he is to be believed, he had never had any intention but to avenge his wrong with his own hand. But now, according to his own story, he began to despair of a favourable opportunity, for while he himself was well‑known at Whitefriars, where Turner lived, the fencing‑master was not familiar to him, and he had to take with him those who knew Turner better than himself in order to "make siccar" of his man. He, therefore, "agreed with" two of his countrymen, who, to use his rather fine phrase, "undertook the acting of this tragedy" - in simple words he hired a brace of ruffians to commit an act of murder.
	My readers, I think, will not be satisfied that this is the real explanation of his decision to perpetrate the crime by deputy. It is most unlikely that he could have had any difficulty in recognising the man, whom he had stood up to at the foils, and who had been almost constantly in his mind's eye for years; or if he had any such difficulty, what could have been easier than to get a public character like Turner pointed out to him? Is it not a good deal more likely that he feared that if he attacked Turner, unless he took him so completely by surprise as to incur the contempt due to cowardice and treachery, he would be worsted, and might even suffer more than the loss of any eye?
	However this may be, of the fact that he did "agree with" the men to assassinate Turner there can be no doubt; but, to quote another of his euphemisms, "nothing ensued upon it". How it was that the scheme missed fire we know not; but the probability is that the fellows decamped with their earned money, not choosing to go any further with the sorry and perilous business.
	Sanquhar now had occasion to travel on the Continent, and was away for some time, but on his return, he once more set himself to compass Turner's destruction, and finally prevailed upon two of his servants, Robert Carlisle and Gilbert Gray, to do the deed. Gray, however, could not bring himself to such a piece of wickedness. "Repenting", says Sir Edward Coke, "of a purpose and act so barbarous, vile, and bloody, being touched with the motion of the Holy Ghost", he resolved to back out of the affair, and, fearing his patron's wrath, he started for Harwich to take ship for Denmark. Carlisle was a more determined villain. Telling his master of Gray's defection, he volunteered to carry through the business himself, and he said he would do it as soon as Turner was back in London, even though he perished in the attempt.
	It was early in May, 1612 that Gray "fell quite off". On the 11th of that month - five long years after the mischance at the foils - about 7 o'clock in the evening, Carlisle, and with him a page of Lord Sanquhar's named Irving, came upon Turner at a tavern in Whitefriars near the fencing school, sitting just outside the door with a friend. Either Carlisle or Irving, or both of them, must have had some acquaintance with Turner, for they saluted him, and he civilly invited them to drink with him. For answer Carlisle turned round, saw to the priming of a pistol which he had concealed upon him, cocked it, and then suddenly, wheeling around, discharged it point blank at the man who had just offered him hospitality. The ball entered the heart, and with the exclamation "Lord have mercy upon me! I am killed!" the poor fellow fell to the ground, and almost instantly expired.
	The murderers at once bolted, in different directions. As soon as the bystanders had recovered from their consternation they gave chase. Carlisle made good his escape, but Irving, the page, being less familiar with the locality, ran into a blind alley, and before he could get out again his pursuers were upon him, and he was secured.
	This, however, was but a partial satisfaction to outraged public feeling. It was not Irving who had fired the fatal shot, but Carlisle. Moreover, there was a strong suspicion that even Carlisle was only in a legal and not also in a moral sense the principal in the crime.
	Lord Sanquhar's malice against Turner appears to have become notorious, and the suspicion that he was the contriver of the base and cruel deed must have been greatly strengthened by the fact that both Carlisle and Irving were known to be in his service. That a dastardly murder should have been committed in open day in the City of London, and almost in the shadow of the court, was in itself enough to move the public to anger in an exceptional degree; that the actual murderers should have been Scotsmen, and the probable contriver of the crime one of those Scottish nobles whose selection for honour and emolument by the King was keenly resented by his English subjects, were circumstances that greatly exacerbated an indignation already sufficiently bitter and violent.
	Exigent and clamant, therefore, was the demand that justice be done upon the criminals and especially upon the man in whose rancorous breast the murder had the birth.
	But there were difficulties in the way. By ordinary process of law Lord Sanquhar could not be charged as an accessory until Carlisle, the principal, had been attainted, and this would take a long time unless the latter could be arrested. But he fled to Scotland, and once there he was not amenable to English law! Yet unless the King was to incur grave odium, it was necessary that the murderers should speedily be brought to justice. James therefore set his lawyers to work, and as the result of his counsels with them, by an unusual exercise of sovereign authority, he issued a royal proclamation, giving all his subjects, Scottish as well as English, authority to apprehend Carlisle and Gray, as well as Lord Sanquhar, who had made himself scarce, having either hidden himself away in London or fled to the country. For the production of his body, if living, the reward of £500, and if dead of £300, was offered; smaller rewards, respectively of £100 and £50, were offered in the case of Carlisle.
	Messengers were at once dispatched hotfoot to all parts, and also to Scotland, to carry this proclamation and raise the hue and cry, and such was the dispatch used that Carlisle was laid by the heels "ere he was to warm his house" across the Tweed, and Gray at Harwich, where he was about to embark for Denmark or Sweden. As to Lord Sanquhar, as soon as he heard that the proclamation was to be or had just been issued, thought it prudent to give himself up, and on the Thursday after the murder he appeared at Lambeth Palace and surrendered himself to Archbishop Abbot. He, however, solemnly protested his innocence, and knowing that Carlisle and Gray had both got clean away, he no doubt reckoned that it would be impossible to bring home to him the crime, since there had been no communication on the subject between him and Irving, the man in custody. But when Gray was brought in the case began to wear a more serious look. Under examination the man made a clean breast of his share in the business, and when Lord Sanquhar was confronted with him, in the presence of the King himself, and was closely pressed, it was not long before he, too, broke down and confessed that the murder was of his procurement.
	It was on the 27th of June, six weeks after the crime, that he was brought to trial in the Court of the King's Bench, in Westminster Hall. He had claimed to be tried by his peers, but the plea was not allowed, since though he was a lord in Scotland, he was not a peer of the English Parliament, and so he had been lodged, not in the Tower, but in the prison of the King's Bench, and was now indicted as Robert Creighton. Asked if he was guilty or not guilty, he embarked upon a long speech, which is a curious psychological study.
	In form it is categorical and pedantic, such as might have been composed by a lawyer or a theologian. As to its spirit I confess that it is not easy to take a favourable view of it. There are profuse expressions of contrition, there is a great parade of candour, yet he admits no more than could be proved against him, and in spite of his express acceptance of his doom as both righteous and inevitable, it is patent that he is all along appealing to the clemency of the King. From this point of view the address, whatever may be thought of its sincerity, was framed not without skill. It was just such a prelection as would interest and titillate a monarch like James, a dull, conceited, pragmatic pedant, with a voracious appetite for the coarsest flattery. Sanquhar enumerates categorically the points of his crime. "I have offended (1) God, (2) my Prince, (3) my native country, (4) this country, (5) the party murdered" - his unfortunate victim, it will be seen, comes far down in the list - "(6) his wife, (7) posterity, (8) Carlisle, and lastly (9) my own soul". Then he takes up each point in turn, but it is his offence "unto the King's Majesty" that he is most emphatic about. "If I had more than my life to make satisfaction unto him I would think myself happy. And this favour I request of your lordships, that the King may be truly informed of the sincerity of my confession, and of my hearty repentance, and if it please him not of his favour and clemency to pardon me this offence, yet I humbly desire that I may die in his grace and favour". He then deals with the imputation, regarding it as a blemish upon his reputation, which was "more dear to him than life", that although nursing hatred against Turner in his heart he had professed to be reconciled to him. By way of reply to this accusation he protests at great length that from the time he received his hurt he had been consistent in his hatred, and since his first return from France had sought every occasion of wreaking his vengeance. Feeling that he was thus making himself out as a very sorry fellow, he declared that though he had had occasion to draw his sword both in the field and upon sudden violences, and had both given and received hurts, yet was he never guilty of blood unto death till now: only - and here he glances again at the King - "only I must confess that upon commission from the King to suppress wrongs done me in my own country, I put divers of the Johnsons to death; but for that, I hope, I shall need neither to ask God nor man for forgiveness."
	As the prisoner at the bar pleaded guilty, the solicitor-general, who was none other than the great Sir Francis Bacon, tendered no evidence, but delivered himself of a long speech, addressed not to the court, but to the culprit himself. It was for the most part a fulsome, yet magnificent eulogy of the King; and it was on this occasion and in this connection that Bacon employed one of the most famous of his metaphors. "Then did his Majesty", he exclaimed, "stretch forth his long arms (for kings, you know, have long arms), one of them to the sea, where he took Gray shipped for Sweden; the other to Scotland and took hold of Carlisle, ere he was warm in his house".
	The judge, Justice Yelverton, followed in the same strain of gross adulation, but not at all in the same grand manner, and then, in the formula which is used to this day, passed the death sentence.
	Great efforts were made by Sanquhar's friends to obtain a commutation of the capital penalty, and Archbishop Abbot also used his influence with the King to the same end. But James was obdurate. It has been said that he had a personal grudge against the misguided nobleman. While Lord Sanquhar was in France, so the tale goes, someone remarked in his hearing that he was the son of David (Rizzio); and he had failed to resent the profane witticism. The story is probably apocryphal. At any rate, it is easy without it to understand why James refused to exercise his prerogative of mercy. The man who could be base enough to fling a Raleigh to the Spanish wolves who were howling for his blood, was not likely to incur the slightest risk of giving offence to his Southern subjects by plucking Sanquhar from the gallows.
	So two days later the miserable man was brought to what is now known as New Palace Yard, and there, before the great gate of Westminster Hall, paid the penalty of his crime, after delivering an address in which he declared himself to be of the Roman Catholic faith, and which breathes a genuine contrition not to be felt in his speech at the trial. Carlisle and Irving [Gray?] had already suffered for their offence, on gibbets set up in Fleet-street over against the entrance to Whitefriars, the precinct to which their victim belonged and in which they had treacherously done him to death.
	The remainder to the Earldom of Cromartie and subsidiary titles created in 1861
	From the London Gazette of 18 October 1861 (issue 22557, page 4143):-
	The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal, granting the Dignities of Baroness, Viscountess, and Countess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto Anne, Duchess of Sutherland, wife of George Granville William, Duke of Sutherland, by the names, styles, and titles of Baroness Macleod, of Castle Leod, in the county of Cromartie, Baroness Castlehaven, of Castlehaven, in the same county, Viscountess Tarbat, of Tarbat, in the same county, and Countess of Cromartie; and further granting, after her decease, the titles of Baron Macleod, Baron Castlehaven, Viscount Tarbat, and Earl of Cromartie unto Francis Sutherland Leveson Gower (commonly called Lord Francis Sutherland Leveson Gower), the second surviving son of the said Anne, Duchess of Sutherland, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, with remainders over.
	The "remainders over" referred to are fully set out in the Journals of the House of Lords (121 LJ p 74) and read - "and, in default of such issue [i.e. of Francis Sutherland Leveson Gower], to each of the other younger sons of the said Anne Duchess of Sutherland, by her present or any future husband hereafter to be begotten, and to the heirs male of the body and respective bodies of such sons severally and successively, one after another, as they shall be according to seniority of age and priority of birth, the elder of such sons and the heirs male of his body always to be preferred and take before the younger of such sons and the heirs male of his and their respective body and bodies, and in default of such issue, unto the said Francis Sutherland-Leveson-Gower (commonly called Lord Francis Sutherland-Leveson-Gower) and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten, and, in default of such issue, to each of the other younger sons of the said Anne Duchess of Sutherland, by her present or any future husband hereafter to be begotten, and to the heirs of the body and respective bodies of such sons severally and successively, one after another, as they shall be according to seniority of age and priority of birth, the elder of such sons and the heirs of his body always to be preferred and to take before the younger of such sons and the heirs of his and their respective body and bodies, and, in default of such issue, to our trusty and well-beloved Florence Sutherland-Leveson-Gower (commonly called Lady Florence Sutherland-Leveson-Gower), daughter of the said Anne Duchess of Sutherland, and the heirs of her body lawfully begotten and to be begotten, and in default of such issue to each of the other daughters of the said Anne Duchess of Sutherland, by her present or any future husband hereafter to be begotten, and to the heirs of the body and respective bodies of such daughters severally and successively one after another as they shall be according to seniority of age and priority of birth, the elder of such daughters and the heirs of her body always to be preferred and take before the younger of such daughters and the heirs of her or their respective body and bodies".
	There is, however, a further proviso to be taken into account - "Provided that if the said Francis Sutherland-Leveson-Gower or any other person taking under the said letters patent shall succeed to the Earldom of Sutherland, and there shall upon or at any time after the occurrence of such an event be any other younger son or any other daughter of the said Anne, Duchess of Sutherland, or any heir of the body of such other son or daughter, then, and so often as the same may happen, the succession to the honours and dignities thereby created shall devolve upon the son or daughter of the said Anne, or their heirs, who would be next entitled to succeed to the said honours if the person so succeeding to the Earldom of Sutherland were dead without issue". The effect of this proviso is that the peerages became subject to a "shifting remainder" so that, on certain contingencies happening, the peerages would pass from one person to another, even though no death had intervened to cause such a change. For a fuller explanation of a "jumping remainder" see the note under the Barony of Buckhurst.
	If you can understand all that, you're doing well. The important point to note is that, while at first glance the remainder seems to repeat itself in the eighth line of the second paragraph above (by going back to Francis Sutherland-Leveson-Gower), close examination will show that, for the balance of that paragraph the references are to "heirs of the body" rather than "heirs male of the body". As a result, the succession was opened up so that the peerages could descend to female heirs.
	In order to make understanding of the remainder easier, it can be summarised as follows:-
	(1) to her second surviving son Lord Francis Leveson-Gower, and the heirs male of his body; (2) to each other of her younger sons and the heirs male of their bodies; (3) to Lord Francis Leveson-Gower and the heirs of his body (i.e. not heirs male) [with the result that the peerages could descend through female lines]; (4) to each other of her younger sons in priority of birth and the heirs of their bodies (again, not heirs male); (5) to her daughter Lady Florence and the heirs of her body; and (6) to each other of her daughters in priority of birth and the heirs of their bodies.
	In the event, section (2) above became redundant, since the Countess had only the one son. On the death of the Countess, she was succeeded by her son Francis, who died in 1893, leaving two surviving daughters. As a result, the Earldom fell into abeyance until 1895 when the abeyance was terminated in favour of the elder daughter.
	David Godfrey Bewicke-Copley, 6th Baron Cromwell
	Lord Cromwell died after being thrown from his horse in August 1982. The following report of the inquest into his death appeared in The Guardian on 11 September 1982:-
	Lord Cromwell suffered severe brain damage when he was thrown twice by a partly-trained horse, an inquest in Coventry was told yesterday.
	Grey Lad, the four-year-old gelding that threw him, and his two other horses were destroyed on his widow's orders two days after his death.
	Lord Cromwell was exercising Grey Lad in a field when the horse lunged forward and he fell off, hitting the back of his head on the hard ground. Although dazed, he insisted on remounting and riding away but moments later stable staff again saw him fall and land on his head.
	He died four days later in a Coventry hospital. The Coroner, Mr. Francis Kenderdine, recorded a verdict of accidental death on Lord Cromwell, the Government's senior stockbroker, of the Manor House, Great Milton, Oxfordshire.
	There was no doubt his fatal injuries were caused by one of the falls Mr.  Kenderdine said.
	Lady Cromwell told the coroner that her husband wore a top hat when out hunting, but at other times he seldom wore anything on his head.
	John Michael Inigo Cross, son of 2nd Viscount Cross (23 March 1923-2 February 1951)
	Cross died in February 1951 after disappearing in the Scottish Highlands. The following articles from The Times describe the events:-
	5 February 1951 -
	An R.A.F. mountain rescue team will join in the search today for Mr. John Michael Inigo Cross, 27, younger surviving son of the late Lord Cross, who has been missing since Friday on the snow-covered mountains between Loch Arkaig and Ben Nevis. They will operate from Fort William, Inverness. A rescue party of 84 experienced hillmen and police searched 40 square miles in the area yesterday and on Saturday.
	Mr. Cross, who is factor for the West Highland Estates, lives at Glenan House, Fort William. He visited the Glendessary forest on Friday with the Inverness county agricultural committee and a fencer to inspect the deer fences, and arranged to meet them later. He failed to turn up.
	7 February 1951 -
	There is still no news of Mr. John Michael Cross, son of the late Lord Cross, who was lost in snowstorms on Friday night in Glendissary forest, Inverness-shire.
	7 June 1951 -
	The body of Mr. John Michael Cross, 27, factor for the West Highland Estates, was found yesterday by a shepherd in a burn at Caonich, Glendessary Forest, Inverness-shire. He was the brother of Lord Cross, and had been missing since February 2.
	George Clifford, 3rd Earl of Cumberland
	The following biography of the 3rd Earl of Cumberland appeared in the October 1968 issue of the Australian monthly magazine Parade:-
	One December day in 1589 watchers on the Cornish coast saw a little fleet of six ships creeping slowly with tattered sails and storm-beaten hulls towards the harbour of Falmouth. As the vessels straggled into the anchorage they looked more like the survivors of a desperate naval battle than the victors in one of the most sensational plundering expeditions in British maritime history. Hundreds of wounded lay crowded on heaps of blood-soaked straw below decks. Most of their comrades were emaciated by starvation and shaking with fever. Their commander, the dashing piratical Earl of Cumberland, was so weak that he had himself lashed to the foremast of his flagship as he piloted his squadron into harbour.
	Yet Cumberland's fouled and leaking ships were, in fact, floating treasure houses, laden with golden loot worth the equivalent of $600,000 from the galleons of Spain and Portugal. For six months he had roamed the central Atlantic, capturing, sinking or burning at least 15 ships in a foray that struck terror into the proud navy of the King of Spain. Queen Elizabeth greeted him as one of her greatest heroes, worthy to rank with Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher and the other adventurers who scourged the seas wherever the warships and treasure galleons of Spain were to be found. To the Spanish, of course, Cumberland and his compatriots were simply red-handed, pirate cut-throats, outlaws beyond the pale of civilization or mercy if they were caught. Five times he led his marauders out into the Atlantic treasure routes, bringing home a mass of plunder rivalled only by the exploits of the "dragon of the sea", Sir Francis Drake.
	He should have been one of the richest men in England. But money flowed like water through the hands of the swaggering, dissipated and wildly extravagant Earl of Cumberland. He wore Queen Elizabeth's diamond­studded glove as a favour in his hat. But the monarch who had personally reaped a huge share of his plunder refused even to help pay the debts that overwhelmed his last years. At 47, the glittering Lord Cumberland was dead - bankrupt, broken in spirit, but leaving a name that was to haunt the Spanish Main for a generation afterwards.
	He was born George Clifford at Brougham Castle in Westmoreland in August 1558 and succeeded to his father's title as third Earl of Cumberland at the age of 11. The Cliffords were among the greatest magnates of the north of England. Young Cumberland inherited a princely estate and quickly set about squandering it in a princely fashion. He was still in his teens when he wed the daughter of his guardian, the Earl of Bedford, but soon deserted his bride to plunge into a courtier's life of gambling, hunting and fantastic expenditure on clothing and jewels. By 1585 he had run through most of his fortune. He decided that the speediest way to recoup it was to turn to the sea.
	Queen Elizabeth's court was ringing with the exploits of the great captains who sailed out in their small, well-armed ships to harass England's inveterate foe, King Philip of Spain. They pounced on the ponderous galleons bound for Cadiz with the gold of Mexico and Peru. They spread fire, terror and destruction among the Spanish colonies in the Americas.
	Cumberland was not a born seaman like Drake or Hawkins. But the peacock courtier-turned-pirate was to prove as tough and brilliant a navigator as any other Elizabethan captain. In 1587, with three cockle-shell vessels he cruised down the South American coast from the Caribbean to the River Plate. The prizes scarcely paid the cost of the expedition, but only a year later the aftermath of the Spanish Armada provided a turning point in Cumberland's fortunes.
	During the historic battle off Dunkirk as the huge Armada sailed up the Channel, Cumberland commanded the 600-ton Bonaventura, one of the biggest ships in the English Navy. Steering headlong into the heart of the action he attacked the giant San Felipe, killed 200 of her crew, set her on fire and drove her out of the battle. Wounded three times he then sailed up the Thames to Tilbury, the first man to inform Queen Elizabeth of the epic tidings that the Armada was beaten, scattered and in full retreat. The jubilant Queen promised the messenger any favour he cared to name. It was a warship that Cumberland wanted, a powerful, heavily armed vessel to lead his next foray against King Philip's galleons.
	By June 1589 he was at sea again, and the Queen's ship Victory and five smaller craft, which he equipped himself by pledging the last of his ancestral estates. Officially it was a naval expedition, but Cumberland knew that nobody, least of all the Queen, would inquire too closely where his plunder came from. And few of Britain's sea marauders ever came home with the staggering haul of gold and silver plate, gems, coin and spices that the Earl of Cumberland collected in the next six months. Before he left the Channel he had sunk three big French merchantmen bound from the Mediterranean, an act of blatant and ruthless piracy, though he put the crews ashore unharmed. Off the Portuguese coast he looted and burned several galleons laden with spices, silks and jewels from the East Indies, meeting little resistance from the unwieldy enemies. But his most sensational coups came a few weeks later as he cruised round the islands of the Azores in the central Atlantic.
	The Azores were a customary staging point for the Spanish treasure fleets returning with ingots of gold and silver from the fabulous American mines. They were also a favourite lurking place for the English sea wolves. On the day when he sighted the islands Cumberland fell on a Spanish galleon, boarded her after desperate fighting and seized gold worth $200,000 before sinking her. A week later, learning that seven ships were sheltering at Fayal, he steered boldly into the harbour in the teeth of a fierce cannonade from the fortress and plundered them all, one after the other. Next he appeared off the towns of Graciosa and Santa Maria, seizing, plundering and burning more rich prizes under the very eyes of the terrified inhabitants. Only his attempt to capture Santa  Maria itself ended in bloody disaster when two-thirds of his landing party were killed or wounded by point-blank fire from the forts.
	His ships now crammed with loot, prisoners and wounded, Cumberland decided to sail for home, the start of a voyage that degenerated into a nightmare of suffering. Atlantic storms beat the fleet hundreds of miles off its course. Fever raged virulently among the crews. Thirst and starvation increased the toll of horrors. By the time Cumberland reached the Channel half his men were dead and the remainder existing on a spoonful of vinegar and a fistful of maggoty flour a day. Yet, on the quays of Falmouth, the gaunt, yellow-faced survivors unloaded a mass of treasure that made the pirate Earl the national hero of the day.
	Queen Elizabeth profited hugely from her share in financing the enterprise and she willingly supplied another warship when Cumberland set out again in 1592. This time he joined with Sir John Burgh [1562-1594] off the Azores in capturing and burning the Madre de Dios, known to seamen round the world as the "great galleon" and the biggest and richest ship afloat on the seven seas. The exploit was tarnished by a furious quarrel between Cumberland and Burgh over the division of the spoils, for the Earl's dissolute life between voyages had again embroiled him in enormous debts. [The result of the quarrel between Cumberland and Burgh was the latter's death - he was killed in a sword duel with a man named John Gilbert]. Eventually Cumberland lost most of his claim, but the Queen advanced him the equal of $70,000, cannily insisting on being repaid with extortionate interest after his next expedition.
	Though he made two more cruises as far afield as Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico he never repeated the sensational hauls from the Azores fleet and the "great galleon". In 1594 he swooped on the famous Portuguese merchantman, the Cinco Llagas and left her a burning hulk after taking off 200 chests of cinnamon, rubies and pearls. For the next three years he ornamented Queen Elizabeth's court, the close friend of Sir Walter Raleigh, writing sonnets, gambling, fascinating the Queen by his gallantry and piling up another mountain of debts.
	Desperate need for money drove him back to the sea again and, early in 1598, he began fitting out the biggest and costliest of all his expeditions. With more loans from the Queen and admiring courtiers he built for himself the 'Scourge of Malice', one of the most powerfully armed ships that had ever been launched from the royal dockyard in Deptford on the Thames. Twenty smaller vessels were collected and the celebrated soldier, Sir John Berkeley, was enlisted as second in command of the 1,200 sailors, gunners and pikemen.
	On March 6, 1598, the most imposing piratical fleet that left the shores of Elizabethan England sailed from Plymouth and steered out into the Atlantic. First Cumberland cruised south to the Canary Islands hoping to catch Portuguese East Indiamen lumbering up the west coast of Africa from the Cape of Good Hope. But prizes were few and small so the Earl crossed to Brazil and then to the West Indies for a massive descent on the settlements of the Spanish Main. His main target was San Juan, capital of the island of Puerto Rico, which Cumberland planned to capture and use as a base for further operations.
	On June 6 San Juan was stormed in a lightning assault that took the Spanish completely by surprise. Then Cumberland's ambitious plans steadily began to go wrong. A fearful outbreak of yellow fever decimated the English invaders, already weakened by heavy losses in the battle for the town. Leaving Sir John Berkeley in command at San Juan, Cumberland sailed off to hunt down treasure ships, but news of the English onslaught had already sent the galleons scurrying to the nearest harbours for refuge. When the Earl returned to Puerto Rico he found that Berkeley had abandoned the fever-riddled ruins of San Juan, leaving only the graves of 400 of his seamen.
	Failure of the grandiose West Indian expedition was a crushing blow to the debt-haunted Earl of Cumberland. Back in London he tried vainly to raise money to equip another foray. The Queen turned a deaf ear. Formerly flattering courtiers coldly rebuffed him and creditors pursued him relentlessly. When he died on October 30, 1605, he possessed not a penny of the vast treasure hoard he had brought home from his far-flung pirate adventures.
	William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland (creation of 1726)
	The following biography of Cumberland appeared in the December 1957 issue of the monthly Australian magazine Parade:-
	The ne plus ultra in bloody infamy is the distinction accorded by Englishmen to George, 1st Baron Jeffreys, "The Hanging Judge". Among Scotsmen this dubious honour is reserved for William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, "The Butcher of Culloden", who routed the forces of Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender, in his gallant but abortive bid for his lost inheritance of the English throne in April, 1746, on Culloden Moor. In the ensuing blood-bath, Cumberland secured the Highlands to the English Crown by "making a desert and calling it peace".
	A massive, moon-faced 20-stoner, the son of George II, second Hanoverian king of England, Cumberland was as thick in the head as he was in hocks and hips; and it was to his unimaginativeness that many of his cruelties were due. Cumberland had the virtues of cautious courage and dependability but the vices of brutishness and indifference to human suffering. Boorish, dull, stolid, he stands forever as the Villain in a romance of history in which Charles Edward Stuart was the Prince Charming. Fortunately for posterity Cumberland never married. Throughout his life there are only slight references to the noblewoman to whom he paid his ponderous court - and no record of his success in "affairs of the heart" - except for a shadowy "Miss Elliot" who lived under his protection for the last years of his retirement.
	Late in 1720 the birth of Charles Edward Stuart in Rome to the exiled Stuart Pretender to the throne raised the hopes of the Jacobite world. Eight months later William Augustus, who was to douse those hopes in blood, saw the light of day in England. He was the second surviving son of the Prince of Wales [later George II] and Princess Caroline of Anspach, and a very beautiful child. In a family with a dreary tradition of mutual hatreds between fathers and sons, it was unusual that both his grandfather, George I, and his parents doted on him.
	His father had hated his father [George I] and when he became King of England in 1727 as George II, transferred that hatred to his own elder son Frederick, William Augustus' brother, the Prince of Wales. His father once said of him: "My dear first born is the greatest ass and the greatest liar and the greatest canaille [riff-raff] and the greatest beast in the whole world, and I heartily wish he was out of it". Both mother and son tried to deprive Frederick of his right of accession to the English throne and accord it to their beloved fat boy William Augustus, now grown into a beefy youth. They were unable to do this, but loaded riches and honours on William in inverse ratio to the hatred they bestowed on his brother, Frederick. William's income was lavishly increased to support his dignity as the Duke of Cumberland.
	Queen Caroline died late in 1737 after a year of bitter family strife. In the following year, at the age of 17, Cumberland was given £12,000 a year to support him in a naval career. He was a failure as a sailor, and was appointed on his 20th birthday to command the Coldstream Guards. Cumberland took to the Army like a duck to water. Two years later his father took him to the Continent for active service. In the summer of 1743 George II, then in his 60th year, led about 40,000 British and hired Hanoverian troops to drive the French out of the Rhineland. At the battle of Dettingen on June 27 - the last occasion in which an English king was to lead his troops in battle - Cumberland led a brigade, and in the midst of the British victory was wounded in the leg.
	After Dettingen, Cumberland was promoted Lieutenant-General. To the mob in England he had become "Billy the Bold" and was being described as outrageously and shockingly military. With the he was popular enough as a hard-working, personally courageous officer, and was respected for these qualities. But he was feared for his severity of discipline, which was counted harsh even in an age when 1000 lashes was the customary punishment for mutiny or stealing.
	On March 6 [1745], within a few weeks of his 24th birthday, Cumberland was gazetted Captain-General of His Majesty's land forces. He had not yet acquired the monstrous obesity of later years although he was tall and massive and much of the earlier handsomeness had vanished from his lard-like face. At Fontenoy in the summer of 1745 Cumberland showed himself small fry against Marshal de Saxe, who, admittedly, was by way of being a military genius. Billy the Bold is said to have burst into a violent fit of crying when he lost the day and accounts were brought in to him of the killed and wounded. But he marshalled his forces to make an orderly retreat.
	At home Cumberland's defeat was attributed to the cowardice or treachery of his Dutch allies. In the autumn, when news came that the Pretender, Charles Edward Stuart, had landed in Scotland and routed the British Army at Prestonpans [21 September 1745], Cumberland was appealed to as the only man capable of averting the destruction of Britain at the hands of Charles and his wild Highlanders. Cumberland reached London in October, and the attitude of the average Londoner was expressed by Horace Walpole: "The great dependence is on the Duke", Walpole wrote. "The soldiers adore him, and with reason, for I am told he is a great military genius." The French, however, are reported to have said that "they knew better than to take him prisoner for he did them more service at the head of the British Army".
	Instead of following up his victory at Prestonpans, Charles Stuart delayed for a month; but by December he was as far south into England as Derby. London panicked, and December 6 was known as "Black Friday". There was a run on the Bank of England so great that cheques were cashed in sixpences. Shops were boarded up, and all who could made plans to flee to the country. However, instead of marching towards London, Charles, on the advice of his Council, retreated, for one English army under Marshal Wade and another, 10,000 strong under Cumberland, were converging upon him.
	On January 30, 1746, Cumberland arrived at Holyrood, and slept in the very bed used by Prince Charles during his stay in Edinburgh. His presence stiffened the morale of the English Redcoats, for although biased and brutal, he was a vigorous and capable officer, and showed himself determined to stamp out the rebellion even if he had to exterminate the entire race of Scots to do it. The Duke's unpopularity grew, especially after Linlithgow Palace, birthplace of Mary Queen of Scots and home of many Stuart kings, went up in flames the morning after his troops had been quartered there. Whether the fire was due to vandalism, as the Scots alleged, or to accident, as Cumberland claimed. has never been decided.
	On February 6 [1746], Cumberland reached Perth, in Scotland, after having "thought fit to let the soldiers a little loose, with proper precautions, that they might have some sweets with all their fatigues". After passing through Perth, he had to reckon with mounting hostility. At Glamis Castle, he was entertained by the Strathmores with all honour due to his rank; but when he proposed to set out next day, the saddle girths of his and his escort's horses were spirited away by the hairy laird who haunted the castle. After his delayed departure, his hosts burned the bed "desecrated by the sleep of the German swine". As he went on his way through the little Scottish town of Brechin, the weighty gallant blew a kiss to a pretty girl among the crowd watching him. She showed him her back in an offensive gesture, and the Scottish villagers displayed their contempt of him in a roar of laughter. Not all the rigours of martial law cruelly applied could quench the courageous contempt of Scotsmen for Cumberland.
	At the beginning of March, Cumberland issued a proclamation offering mercy to all laying down their arms; but the poor response led him to the conclusion that nothing would cure the "petulant, insolent spirit of the people" other than "some stroke of military authority and severity". His army was not only better than the Young Pretender's in point of numbers, but immeasurably superior in discipline, organisation, training, efficiency and supplies. The Highlanders harried the English with guerrilla warfare, but it would have had to have been on a much larger scale to have been effective.
	Accordingly, on April 16, when the two armies met at Culloden, a few miles east of Inverness, the Highlanders were a ragged, starving and weary band, their chief weapons courage and the grim determination of despair. They were prevented from coming to grips with the British by a storm of grape-shot, and within 25 minutes the battle was over, Charles was in flight, and the day was irretrievably and hopelessly lost for the Young Pretender's cause. "The moor was covered with blood, and our men, what with killing the enemy, dabbling their feet in the blood and splashing it about one another, looked like so many butchers," wrote a Hanoverian officer under Cumberland.
	There were only 1000 of the original 5000 Scots who entered the battle left on the field, and of these many were murdered in cold blood during the terrible three days that followed. Cumberland gave no quarter to his fallen foe. It is said of him that while he was riding over the battlefield a wounded rebel grimaced defiance. Cumberland turned to Major (later General) Wolfe, the hero of Quebec: "Shoot me that scoundrel who dares to look on us with such contempt", he ordered. Wolfe is said to have replied: "My commission is at Your Royal Highness' disposal, but I can never consent to become an executioner".
	Immediately after the battle there was a search made through the adjacent houses, and wounded Highlanders were dragged out and shot or clubbed to death. A number of prisoners were rounded up in a barn which was locked and set on fire. The dead were stripped naked and left lying on the battlefield for days, while those who wished to pass that way were obliged to ride over the rotting corpses. One Highlander, left for dead and unable to rise because of his wounds, saw a coach approaching and painfully dragged himself out of its path. "The coach came so near that the coachman made a lick at me with his whip as if I had been a dog", he later testified.
	The pogrom which Cumberland instituted after the blood-bath of Culloden was a terrible systematic massacre of wounded and fugitives. Every cottage was searched and many innocent people were murdered. Cumberland began a methodical occupation of the country moving from Inverness to Fort Augustus, and establishing camp there, whence he sent out a series of punitive expeditions. Tradition has it that Fort Augustus was the scene of monstrous orgies, with the wives of rebels stripped naked and made to ride horseback races for the entertainment of the British soldiers and their camp followers. All Scots, even the poorest tenants, were dubbed suspect of having taken part in the rising and were systematically deprived of their flocks and grain. Along the main roads, soldiers hunted down the Jacobites, and virtually wiped out many clans, in pursuit of Cumberland's policy of devastation and plunder.
	The news of the victory at Culloden reached London on April 25. The House of Hanover and the Whigs had had a bad scare and, delirious with joy, backed up Cumberland, the Great Man of the Hour, in his policy of revenge. His father made him a gift of £10,000, and to evidence the nation's gratitude an income of £40,000 a year was granted him by Parliament in addition to his income as a Prince of the Royal House. Portraits of the triumphant Duke were sold in the streets, his name was a popular toast in alehouses, and his image was hung outside dozens of inns. (In Scotland, however, the eyes were always picked out of the signs.) As one British rhymer put it fulsomely, "Sweet William ruled the day". Handel composed "Judas Maccabeus" in celebration of his triumphant return to London in July from the now silent, sullen and deserted Highlands. His only regret in this dreadful affair was that he could find no one to betray the fugitive Young Pretender for even the £30,000 of "blood-money" he had offered.
	Another sound trouncing at the hands of the French under Marshal de Saxe, upon his return to the Continent, however, took some of the "starch" out of Cumberland. He was appointed to the sinecure of Ranger of Windsor Forest, and settled down to the life he liked best - hunting, horse-breeding, dicing, and gambling on a mammoth scale. Public opinion was reacting against the acclamations given him after Culloden. When it was proposed to give him the freedom of one of the city's ancient Companies, one of the aldermen cried out: "Then let it be of the Butchers" - and afterwards, Cumberland's nickname of "Butcher" stuck.
	By 1749, to the bewilderment of his ageing father, Cumberland's name had become a byword for barbarous and arbitrary discipline. Horace Walpole wrote: "His savage temper increases every day #&8230; He loves blood like a leech." Walpole was commenting on the Duke's avowed determination to keep a certain court-martial sitting for six months if need be, to force it to increase its order of 200 lashes for a soldier who had overstayed his leave by a single day! He had already attained the gross obesity which oppressed him like a deformity. At a ball given by his crony, the dull rake Lord Sandwich, he tumbled down in the middle of a country dance and "lay like a turtle on the top shell, for his face could not reach the ground by some feet".
	By 1750 Cumberland was one of the wildest plungers in England, losing as much as £10,000 on a boxing wager and gambling away as much as £30,000 in a single night. The following year - when "poor Fred" his brother died, and old George II not only absented himself from the funeral but allowed no fitting funeral ceremony - English opinion expressed itself: "If it had only been William; if it had only been 'the Butcher'", Englishmen said. In 1757 Cumberland was again abroad as Commander-in-Chief. He was defeated at Hastenbeck and agreed to the shameful conditions imposed by the French [in the Treaty of Kloster-Zeven, 8 September 1757] to disband his army and evacuate Hanover. Discredited, he returned to England, where his disgrace was completed by his father's furious refusal to ratify the conditions of the surrender.
	Cumberland retired to private life and meddled with politics, doing what he could, after the death of his father in 1760 and the accession of his nephew, to displace the ministry of Lord Bute, George III's former tutor and a Scot, and backing Pitt, the people's idol. He was already a victim of gout and in 1764 the wound he had received at Dettingen broke out afresh. He died in October of the following year.
	Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn
	Prince Henry Frederick was a younger brother of King George III. In keeping with family tradition, Henry Frederick was alleged to have married, in a secret ceremony on 4 March 1767, one Olive Wilmot, who reputedly gave birth to a daughter, Olivia, in 1772. It is with Olivia and her daughter Lavinia that we are concerned with in this note.
	Olivia was an imposter who attempted to claim that she was the daughter of the Duke of Cumberland. Her story can be found in old editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the following being from the 11th edition.
	Olivia was born Olive Wilmot, the daughter of Robert Wilmot, a house painter and embezzler, in Warwick. At the age of 10 she was sent to board with her uncle, James Wilmot, rector of Barton-on-the-Heath. In 1789 she rejoined her father in London. She had a talent for painting and studied art with John Thomas Serres (1759-1825), marine painter to George III, and she married Serres in 1791. They had two daughters. Olive exhibited her paintings at the Royal Academy of Arts and the British Institution, but was financially reckless; both she and her husband were imprisoned for debt. The Serres came to a parting of the ways, with acrimony on both sides; from Serres because Olive had had several affairs when he was away, and from Olive because she was given an allowance of only £200 per annum. George Fields, an artist friend, moved in with Olive and she gave birth to his son prior to her divorce in 1804. She then devoted herself to painting and literature, producing a novel, some poems and a memoir of her uncle the Rev. Dr Wilmot, in which she endeavoured to prove that he was the author of the Letters of Junius.
	In 1817, Olive wrote a letter to the Prince of Wales, claiming that she was the natural daughter of Prince Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland by Mrs Olive Payne (who was James Wilmot's sister and her actual aunt). She asked the Prince for financial support. In a petition to George III, she put forward a claim to be the natural daughter of the Duke of Cumberland, the King's brother.
	In 1820, (after her father, her uncle and King George III had died) she revised her claim. James Wilmot, she claimed, had secretly married the Princess Poniatowski, sister of King Stanislaus I of Poland, and their daughter had married the Duke of Cumberland in 1767 at the London house of a nobleman. Olive claimed to be the only child of this marriage, and that her mother had died 'of a broken heart' on the Duke of Cumberland's 'second' and 'bigamous' marriage to Anne Horton (the Duke had actually only married once, the 'first' marriage being a fabrication by Olive).
	She herself, ten days after her birth, was, she alleged, taken from her mother, and substituted for the still-born child of Robert Wilmot. According to Olive's fantasies, King George III had learned the 'truth' and had given her £5,000 in cash and a yearly pension of £500 for life. She also claimed to have received support from the King of Poland and to have been created Duchess of Lancaster by George III in May 1773, which, she said, entitled her to the income of the Duchy of Lancaster. In a memorial to George IV she assumed the title of Princess Olive of Cumberland, placed the royal arms on her carriage and dressed her servants in the royal liveries.
	Mrs Serres' claim was supported by documents, and she bore sufficient resemblance to her alleged father to be able to impose on numerous gullible people. In 1821, she had herself rebaptized as the daughter of the Duke of Cumberland at Islington Church, and 'announced' her parentage in several letters to the newspapers and in pamphlets. She actually succeeded in obtaining some courtesies in response to her claims of royal status, such as being permitted to pass through the Constitution Gate.
	The same year, however, she was arrested again for debt and placed in the King's Bench Prison. She appealed to the public for contributions, placing posters reading 'The Princess of Cumberland in Captivity!' all over London, and publishing, in 1822, further details of her claims. On her release, she had an affair with Sheriff J W Parkins, a London eccentric, who turned against her when she failed to honour her debts to him. She next had an affair with a young man who called himself William Henry FitzClarence, who claimed to be the illegitimate son of the Duke of Clarence.
	Olive managed to persuade Sir Gerard Noel, an aged member of Parliament, to make inquiry into her claims, but by this time the royal family were fighting back, having located her birth certificate, a statement by Robert Wilmot stating that she was her natural and lawful father, and a statement from Princess Poniatowski that none of King Stanislaus' sisters had ever been to England. In 1823 Sir Robert Peel, then Home Secretary, speaking in Parliament, responded to Noel's speech in Olive's favour with a denunciation of her documents as forgeries and her story as a fabrication. It was concluded that her claims were false, but Olive escaped prosecution for forgery.
	Her husband, who had never given her pretensions any support, expressly denied his belief in them in his will. Olive continued a shadowy existence in and out of debtors' prisons. In 1830 she again published a pamphlet staking her claim on royalty #&8230; Mrs Serres' pretensions were probably the result of an absurd vanity. Between 1807 and 1815 she had managed to make the acquaintance of some members of the Royal family, and from this time onwards seems to have been obsessed with the idea of raising herself, at all costs, to their social level. The tale once invented, she brooded so continuously over it that she probably ended by believing it herself.
	Olive died in November 1834. It will be recalled that Olive had two daughters by John Thomas Serres. The older of these two was Lavinia Serres (1797-1871) who married a painter, Anthony Ryves in 1822, divorcing him in 1841 because he refused to acknowledge her as 'Princess Lavinia'. She kept up her mother's fight and added a new touch to the campaign which, if accepted, would have made her a claimant to Queen Victoria's throne. Lavinia revealed that she was in possession of documents which proved that, before he had married Queen Charlotte, George III had married a Quaker named Hannah Lightfoot in April 1759. If this secret marriage could be proved, it meant that all of George III's children by Charlotte were illegitimate and that the throne should have descended to the descendants of the Duke of Cumberland - i.e. Lavinia.
	In 1866, she took her claim to court where, one by one, a mass of documents were produced with most being dismissed as forgeries. The jury didn't leave the box to reject Lavinia's claim. The authorities impounded all of Lavinia's documents and suppressed all evidence relating to Hannah Lightfoot, for which they were criticized in the newspapers.
	Lavinia's claim regarding Hannah Lightfoot must be treated as being without foundation. Even if Hannah did marry the future George III in 1759, it would have been a bigamous marriage, since Hannah was already married to an Isaac Axford at the time.
	The following lengthy article appeared in the Manchester Times on 4 November 1898, part of a series by Dalrymple Belgrave called Romances of High Life. Reference is made in the article to a book attributed to Lady Anne Hamilton [d 1846], daughter of the 9th Duke of Hamilton. Some of the contents of this book - for example the story that the real author of the Letters of Junius was Dr. James Wilmot, and references to Hannah Lightfoot - indicate that perhaps Olivia Serres may have had some role in its compilation. The book was published in 1832, and was speedily suppressed. My copy is a reprint dated 1883.
	In the year 1866, a Mrs. Ryves took advantage of the Legitimacy Declaration Act [1858] to bring a matter before the Divorce Court that had amused the curious of a past generation. It was then forty‑four years since the public had first heard of the claims and wrongs of a certain person who called herself Princess Olive of Cumberland. At no time were those pretensions believed in by any persons of sense who had taken the trouble to examine into them, while their absurdity had more than once been publicly exposed. Mrs. Ryves, who brought the suit in the Divorce Court, was the daughter of the lady who claimed to be the Princess Olive of Cumberland. The latter lady was born as far back as 1772, and for a large portion of her life nobody even doubted the fact that she was the daughter of Robert Wilmot, house painter, of Warwick. As the daughter of Robert Wilmot she was baptised at St. Nicholas's Church, Warwick, on April 15th, 1772, and as her father and mother were people in a humble position of life, but good character, there could be few people about whose birth there was less doubt or romance.
	Much of Olivia Serres's early life was spent at the house of a bachelor uncle, the Rev. James Wilmot, D.D., who was rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire, and a Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. Dr. Wilmot was an old-fashioned Oxford don, devoted to port wine and to books. His devotion to the former however, is said to have grown, and while he attended to his cellar his niece Olivia had the free run of his library. It is said that in his library there were a good many specimens of that type of work which is described as "top shelf books" - that is to say, works of a former age in which the higher morality or otherwise of a latter age finds very much to take exception to. To these books the young lady seems to have devoted a good deal of her attention. Her old uncle, who had an exalted opinion of his own talents, and the brilliancy of his University career, considered that a hard fate had condemned him to rust away in a country rectory. This made him rather an ill-tempered old gentleman, but his talk about Oxford and the great people he had known there always found a willing listener in his niece.
	When she was 17 years old her father, who had gone to London and established himself there in trade, had her back to live with him. Mr. Robert Wilmot, though only a house painter, had shown some taste for art, and had painted some pictures of Warwick Castle. This had led to his becoming acquainted with a well-known artist, John Thomas Serres [1759-1825], who was the son of Dominic Serres [1722-1793], the Marine Painter to King George III, to which post he afterwards succeeded, and who had come down to Warwick to paint the castle and grounds.
	Serres had helped the house painter in his trade, and had some acquaintance with him in London, and calling at the house after the arrival of the young lady he was at once much struck with her. She was a very pretty girl, and very lively and clever; and although people who knew much about her, even when she was young, seem to have mistrusted her, it is not perhaps surprising that the artist - who was then a man of thirty - should have fallen in love with her. She seems to have had some talent for painting, and it was arranged that he should give her lessons. The lessons ended by his becoming engaged to marry her. At that time Serres had arranged to pay a three years' visit to the Continent for the purpose of studying art, and his plans were not changed by his engagement, which, it was arranged between them, should be kept secret.
	As soon, however, as he had left the young lady announced her engagement. Serres's father seems to have greatly disapproved of it, and to have tried to break it off. The young man, however, was very much in love, and after he had been on the Continent for about a year was brought back to England by a letter from Olivia, who had been sent back to her uncle's, and found the old gentleman's temper more trying than ever. Serres returned, and though some of his friends had a good deal to tell him against the young lady, he refused to listen to anything against her, but hurried down to the Warwickshire Rectory. There they agreed that the marriage should be hastened on, and on September 17th, 1791, they were married by Dr.  Wilmot, at Barton-on-the-Heath Church. After they left the church, the old gentleman gave him some rather remarkable advice. "Serres", he said, "she is now your wife; but mind, keep her employed, or she will be plotting some mischief". Before very long Serres had reason to see how much wisdom there was in the warning. Of course, she made him quarrel with his family, whom she did not forgive for opposing the marriage, though they tried to make the best of it when it could not be helped. She began to be jealous of him, and then she very soon gave him cause to be jealous of her. Serres, as the son of a painter to the King, had some acquaintance with some members of the Royal Family. Mrs. Serres informed him that the Duke of Cambridge had paid her a visit, and had made love to her. The next day, when they were out for a walk together, Serres made a low bow to a gentleman, who said, "How d'ye do, Serres?" "Who is that?" asked Mrs. Serres. Her husband informed her that it was her imaginary lover, the Duke of Cambridge. Many of her injuries to her husband were less shadowy. She spent a great deal of money, and got him into debt, and after some years there was a separation between them. It only lasted for a few months, when Serres, who was as much in love with her as ever, made it up again. Shortly afterwards his father died, and he was appointed Marine Painter to the King in his stead. Part of his duty was, during the war with France, to go into harbours on the enemy's coast and make sketches. For this he was allowed a ship and paid £100 a month. When he came back from this service he found that his wife had not only been spending a great deal of money, but she had signed his name to bills and to a bond for £150. Under these circumstances he became bankrupt rather than convict her of forgery. After that they lived some wretched years together. Serres was still in love with his wife, though he often seems to have had very good reason to be suspicious of her conduct. At last they separated.
	After their separation Mrs. Serres, who had shown a great talent for her husband's art, gave lessons in painting. Amongst her pupils were some members of the Royal Family, and she in 1806 was appointed landscape painter to the Prince of Wales. She also began to write books, publishing "Olivia's Letters to her Daughters", and a work on the Athanasian Creed. Serres, it is said, told a friend that the title of the former work ought to be "Olivia's Letters to her Daughters, or Satan Reproving Sin". About this time there began to be signs that the life she was leading, and the dangerous excitement of having some slight acquaintance with persons of exalted rank, was having an injurious effect upon her reason. In 1808 she began an incoherent correspondence with the Prince Regent. She offered to lend him £20,000, and at the same time she begged him for pecuniary assistance. She compared him to Julius Caesar, and she talked in a mad way about the politics of the illustrious persons of the day. In one letter she asked: "Why, sir, was I so humbly born?" The matter of birth is one which most persons believe cannot be mended. Mrs. Serres, however, appeared to have thought otherwise. Her uncle, Dr. Wilmot, had died in 1808, and in 1813 she wrote an absurd memoir of the old clergyman, in which she represented him as a person of great social and political influence, and on obviously absurd grounds asserted he had written the Letters of Junius. In a second pamphlet on the same subject there was a good deal about the question of handwriting, which was a subject in which she was evidently beginning to take a great deal of interest.
	In the meantime the notion that her birth was of a more romantic character than the parish register made out seemed to be taking possession of her. In 1817 she petitioned the King on the subject, alleging that her father was the late Duke of Cumberland, the younger brother of his Majesty, and that her mother was a married sister of her father's. By 1820, however, when the King and the Duke of Kent had died, her story had evolved into a very ingenious romance, which made out that she was a Royal Princess. To do this she invented, first of all, a Polish Princess, the daughter of Stanislaus, King of Poland. To this Royal lady Dr. Wilmot, her bachelor uncle, was secretly married. The issue of the marriage was one daughter, Olive, who was placed under the care of Dr. Wilmot's married sister. Of course, this daughter grew up marvellously beautiful, and two great men were in love with her. One of them was the Earl of Warwick, the other was the King's brother, the Duke of Cumberland. The Earl gave way to the Duke, and the young lady consenting to that arrangement, the Duke married her at Lord Archer's house in London on March 4th, 1767, in the presence of the Earl of Warwick and James Adder, D.D. Of this marriage there was also one daughter, Olive, who was substituted for a still-born child of Mrs. Robert Wilmot, her grandfather's sister-in-law, and brought up as their child.
	Such was the story by which this lady who would be a Princess got rid of the very obvious and substantial evidence of her humble birth. And this story was, so she declared, in a statement which she addressed to the English people, proved by an immense quantity of documents which she had in her possession; and professed to have obtained from the late Duke of Kent. At this time she obtained a carriage from a confiding tradesman, and had the royal arms painted on it, and drove out in it with her servants dressed in the royal livery. A paper called the "British Luminary" took up her case, and every week published a good deal about her. She failed, however, to attract much attention. Still, however, she was full of resources in hitting upon expedients to come before the public. One day an evening paper wrote that "the public would be a little amused and surprised to hear of the baptism of a full-grown Princess, which took place at Islington Church a few days ago. About eleven o'clock of the forenoon of Thursday last a carriage apparently of a person of rank, was observed standing at the door of the curate's house, and was soon after driven to the gate of the churchyard. The curiosity of the neighbours was much excited on seeing a portly, well-dressed dame, apparently about 50, handed from the coach by a dashing young fellow about half her age. They stayed for some time in the church, and those who looked into the parish register afterwards found baptised Olive, daughter of Frederick Henry, Duke of Cumberland, and Olive, his first wife, born 1772."
	The same paper afterwards published a letter from "Princess Olive", written in the third person, and stating that the person who accompanied the Princess was a relative, William Henry FitzClarence, Esq. Her Royal Highness, wishing "to approach her God and to satisfy the English nation as to her legitimacy, adopted the called-for measure - bound by every principle of conscientious honour to respect the religion which so eminently distinguished Great Britain, and preserved its eternal repose amidst the turmoil of surrounding States". What was perhaps not a very unusual occurrence in her life, an arrest for debt, gave her an opportunity, for she petitioned the Court of Queen's Bench that as a legitimate daughter of the Duke of Cumberland, and, therefore, one of the Royal Family, she was privileged from arrest. The court, however, decided against her on a technical point, that she had not raised the question of privilege in time. Her next step was a somewhat more dangerous one, for she produced what purported to be the will of George III, witnessed by Chatham and Dunning. This document left £15,000 to "Olive, the daughter of our brother of Cumberland". In 1822 she took proceedings in the Prerogative Court on the alleged will, but again she was foiled by legal technicalities, for the court held that in the case of the King's will it had no jurisdiction.
	There are always amiable persons who are looking about for oppressed individuals whose cause they can champion, and one of them, Sir Gerard Noel, a county member [for Rutland], and a baronet of old family, was attracted by the wrongs of the Princess Olive. In 1823 he brought her case forward before the House of Commons, and, presenting a petition from her, moved that a Committee of the House should be appointed to consider it. A more celebrated politician seconded this motion - namely, Mr. Joseph Hume; but he was careful to state that he only wished to say that he considered that her case should be inquired into, and that he expressed no opinion as to its merits. This brought a reply from Sir Robert Peel, that appeared at the time to be perfectly crushing, in which he alluded to the inconsistent pretensions that she had made at other times, and giving other reasons for treating her claims as based on fraud or delusion. In 1825, Serres, who, on account of his wife's extravagance, was always in difficulties, died in the Rules of the King's Bench Prison, and about this time Mrs. Serres herself was arrested for debt, and lived within the Rules of the King's Bench Prison until her death in 1834. She left a daughter, Lavinia, who had been brought up by her and had been educated in an atmosphere of make-believe and delusion. This daughter married, and for some years seems to have not troubled about her claims to illustrious birth, or at all events they did not come before the public. Her marriage, however, was not a happy one, and she obtained a judicial separation from her husband. After that event she seems to have taken a renewed interest in her claims. She at first tried to take proceedings on the alleged will of George III in the Court of Chancery, but there were legal obstacles in her way. Then she published an appeal to Royalty, a pamphlet setting out her claim to be called Princess Lavinia of Cumberland and Duchess of Lancaster.
	This publication was remarkable because it published what purported to be the marriage certificate of George III with Hannah Lightfoot, the Quakeress. There had been some mention of this story before in a book of "Memoirs of the Court", which were supposed to be by Lady Anne Hamilton. That lady, however, had nothing to do with the book, which was full of scandalous falsehoods, many of which still occasionally find their way into print, and there is much in the book to suggest that it was the work of Mrs. Serres, for all her absurd stories about her uncle, Dr. Wilmot, are in it. At length the Legitimacy Declaration Act was passed, which enabled a person to go to the Court of Probate and Divorce and obtain a judgment as to the genuineness of any marriage from which he was descended. Mrs. Ryves [i.e. Lavinia] determined to take advantage of this Act, but at first she was confronted with a difficulty. Her wish to prove that she was the legitimate descendant of the Duke of Cumberland. The date when this alleged marriage with Olive Wilmot was said to have been celebrated was before the Royal Marriage Act, which invalidated the marriage of any descendant of George II unless with the consent of the reigning sovereign, came into force. Therefore there was nothing to prevent it being a perfectly good marriage. The effect of that, however, would have been that Mrs. Ryve's mother would have been a legitimate descendant of George II. If that was the case the consent of George III would have undoubtedly been required to her marriage to Mr. Serres. This difficulty had not been provided for, for, bulky as the documentary evidence was, there was no consent of George III to the unfortunate marriage of Mr. Serres with Olivia. Possibly the difficulty never occurred to the person who could provide the certificate until it was too late.
	Mrs. Ryves, or her advisers, seem to have hit upon a singularly childish expedient. In 1859 she petitioned the court to declare her mother's marriage with Mr. Serres to be a valid one. Now, as to that marriage, which purported to be between Olive Wilmot and Mr. John Thomas Serres, there did not appear to be any doubt or question, nor did it appear to the Attorney-general - whose business it was to see that the Act was not used for declaring the issue of invalid marriages to be legitimate - that there was any ground for his interference. The court therefore declared the marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Serres to be a perfectly valid one. Mrs. Ryves, or her advisers, appeared to think that after this had been obtained there could never be any question about the matter; and she then, together with her son, William Henry Ryves, petitioned the court to declare that Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, and Olive, his wife, were lawfully married; and that Olive, afterwards Olive Serres, was their legitimate child; and that the petitioner, Lavinia Ryves, was lawfully married to Anthony Ryves; and that the second-named petitioner, William Henry Ryves, was their lawful child. This petition, of course, produced an answer from the Attorney-general, who denied that Olive, the petitioner's mother, was the daughter of Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, and Olive Wilmot, and that the petitioner's mother was born as set forth in the petition, or that Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, was married as set forth in the petition. So at last the issue was raised in a court of law.
	Before the case began, however, the question of the position of the petitioner and her "locus standi" was raised. It was pointed out that if she proved her mother's legitimacy she would illegitimatise herself. It was agreed, however, that this question should stand over, and that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed with her attempt to prove the marriage of Olive Wilmot and the Duke of Cumberland. The case was opened by her counsel, who, with a good deal of embroidery, told the romantic story of Olive Serres, and incidentally of Dr. Wilmot and the Polish Princess. Olive and the Duke of Cumberland had been married at the house in London of Lord Archer by Dr. Wilmot, and the marriage was witnessed by "Brooke" [the Earl of Warwick was also Earl Brooke] and J. Adder. The counsel read the certificate, which he said was attested by "Chatham and J. Dunning". He also read another certificate which was exactly to the same effect. He stated that King George III knew of this marriage, and for this reason he was very angry when he afterwards heard that the Duke had married Lady Anne Horton. It was in consequence of this that he gave orders that Olive, who was born shortly after the second marriage, and who had been baptised by Dr. Wilmot, should be re-baptised as the daughter of Robert Wilmot. The order was given in writing, and the learned counsel read it. "G.R. - Whereas it is our Royal will that Olive our niece be baptised Olive Wilmot, to operate during our Royal pleasure. To Lord Chatham." There was a declaration from Lord Warwick to the same effect. Dr. Wilmot, so said the learned counsel, was, however, able to insist that all proceedings should be solemnly certified by the King and other important persons, because it happened that he possessed a secret of the King's. It was that in 1759, three years before he was publicly married to Queen Charlotte, the King had been privately married by that very Dr. Wilmot to a lady named Hannah Lightfoot. It would, he gravely went on to say, be necessary to prove that fact in order to make the declarations of Hannah Lightfoot evidence, as the declarations of the wife of the head of the family.
	Here the Lord Chief Baron interrupted that if that was so George IV would have had no right to the throne.
	"Nor," said the Attorney-General, "would her present Majesty. I do not disguise from myself that this is nothing less than a claim to the throne."
	The counsel went on with his statement, and read two statements in writing by J. Wilmot, one of which was attested by Chatham and J. Dunning, that he had married George III to Hannah Lightfoot. Then he read various other documents, two certificates of the marriage of George III with Hannah Lightfoot, signed by the parties and by James Wilmot as clergyman, and witnessed by William Pitt and Ann Taylor, a written declaration by George III that he created Olive of Cumberland Duchess of Lancaster. To this the court pointed out that such grants were always conferred by a patent under the Great Seal, but this objection did not appear to disconcert the learned counsel, who went on reading his astounding documents. These documents he afterwards attempted to prove by the evidence of an expert in handwriting. There were a number of scraps of paper on which these certificates were written. Everybody appeared to have been willing and anxious to write declarations about everything connected with the story on scraps of paper, and most of these documents were witnessed by William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, and J. Dunning. Mr. Netherclift, the expert in handwriting, expressed his opinion that all the signatures were genuine. In cross-examination, however, he changed his mind, and expressed his opinion that J. Dunning, which appeared on many of them, was a forgery, when it was compared with the real signatures of Dunning, the Attorney-General of those days. There was very little attempt made to prove the handwriting of Lord Chatham by comparison, and it was suggested that he had the gout when he signed the documents; and at last, when a bundle of Chatham's undoubted letters were put into Mr. Netherclift's hand, he said that if those letters were genuine the disputed signatures were not genuine.
	Then Mrs. Ryves went into the box and told her story. She was at first to be examined as to her knowledge of Hannah Lightfoot, and as to that lady's declaration of the marriage of the Duke of Cumberland to Olive Wilmot. This, however, the court would not allow. Each one of the judges expressed his opinion that the alleged certificate - in one of which George III's signature was "George Guelph", a style of signature that had never been used by any member of his family, was a forgery. Then she told stories of the friendly terms which she and her mother had been on with the Duke of Kent and other members of the Royal family, and of how her mother had learnt the secret of her birth from Lord Warwick, and how the Duke of Kent was informed of the story, and was so moved by the news that it shortly caused his death. She was cross-examined by the Attorney-General with the intention, so it seemed, of suggesting that her mother was insane. She was also cross-examined about statements her mother had made in petitions which were inconsistent with the story afterwards set up. She explained this by saying that mistakes had been made by the lawyer who drew up the petition. The Attorney-General pointed out that in the memorial in question offspring had been written as "orfspring". "That also was the lawyer's mistake", she said. Then the Attorney-General read a congratulatory ode she sent to the Prince Regent on his birthday by Mrs. Serres:-
	Hail, valued hour orfspring of Heaven's smile, The great and mighty succour of this isle.
	The Attorney-General's answer was a model of quiet humour, and he suggested that the whole case was a mixture of fraud and insanity. Mrs. Serres's fraud, he suggested, might be palliated, because she was half insane, and Mrs. Ryves might have almost got to believe the absurd impostures in which she had been bred up. He ridiculed the story about Dr. Wilmot and the Princess, and the marriage of his imaginary daughter. Before he had finished speaking the jury stopped him, and said they were all quite agreed, and, though the counsel for the petitioner insisted on making another speech, it was obvious that the absurdity of the case was palpable to all in court. After the jury had, without any hesitation, found against the petition, except that Mrs. Ryves was the legitimate daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Serres, and that W.H. Ryves was the legitimate son of Mr. and Mrs. Ryves, the Attorney-General stated that he was prepared to prove that Dr. Wilmot was at Oxford on the day he was said to have married the Duke of Cumberland and Olive Wilmot in London, and that Lord Warwick had never used the name "Brooke", in which he was supposed to sign many of the documents, as he always took the title of Greville before he succeeded to the peerage.
	Mrs. Ryves died some years afterwards [7 December 1871], and no more has ever been heard of her absurd claims.
	For further reading on this subject, a good summary can be found in The Great Pretenders: The True Stories behind Famous Historical Mysteries by Jan Bondeson [W W Norton & Co, New York 2004] on pages 158-188.
	Ernest Augustus, 1st Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale
	Ernest Augustus was the fifth of George III's pack of sons, described by the Duke of Wellington as 'the damnedest lot of millstones that was ever hung around the neck of any government'. Whereas his other brothers were unpopular from time to time, Ernest Augustus was most heartily hated by the English people almost all of the time.
	After being tutored at home when young, Ernest was sent to the University of Gottingen and was then sent to Hanover to receive military training. He fought in Flanders and the Netherlands during the wars against the French, where he appears to have been quite a competent soldier and commander. During this period, he lost his left eye and thereafter wore a patch over it, giving him a sinister look. Ernest blamed the loss of the eye on a war wound, but it may have been due to a tumour. Significantly, his son also lost an eye to a childhood illness, before losing the other eye shortly afterwards in an accident.
	He returned to England in 1799 to be given a grant of £12,000 a year and the Dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale. He was described at that time as being exceedingly tall with an air of distinction. His one eye was 'a regular piercer'.
	For the next ten years, Cumberland occupied himself in military affairs and as a leader of the right wing extremist section of the Tory party, opposing any proposed reforms. He was the bitter enemy of the Whigs in politics, who did all they could to discredit him.
	The first major scandal of his life occurred on 31 May 1810. Cumberland had attended a concert and had returned home a little after midnight and gone to bed. He was awakened by blows to his head and, starting up, had made for the door of his second valet, Neale, shouting for help while parrying the blows of an unseen attacker. Neale rushed in brandishing a poker and was ordered to arouse the other servants and to stop anyone leaving the Palace. At the door of the Duke's principal valet, Sellis, Neale and the other servants heard a gurgling noise. They went in and found 'a bloody razor lying by Sellis' hand and a wash-basin standing on the table with a little water in it, appearing as if someone had been washing their bloody hands in it'. The Duke's apartments were spattered with blood from one end to the other and the Duke himself had received a number of wounds, the most serious of which were a deep wound to the back of his head and his right thumb, which had been nearly severed by the attacker's blade. Sellis was lying on his bed, his head hanging by a shred and 'his hands straight down, and the blood, all in a froth, running from his neck'.
	Notwithstanding the coroner's finding that Sellis had attempted to murder Cumberland and had then committed suicide, rumour strongly suggested that Cumberland had murdered his valet. The Duke's next brush with scandal occurred in February 1813, when the Duke was accused of attempting to corrupt a recent election for the House of Commons constituency of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis. While this storm blew over, Cumberland commanded the Hanoverian troops at the Battle of Leipzig in October 1813, one of Napoleon's worst defeats.
	Even when he was abroad, however, Cumberland found a way to deepen his unpopularity. He did this by marrying, in 1815, his first cousin Princess Frederica of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. She had already been married twice before, firstly to Prince Frederick Louis of Prussia, by whom she had three children, and secondly to Frederick William, Prince of Solms-Braunfels, by whom she had a further seven children. Cumberland's mother, Queen Charlotte, refused to receive her new daughter-in-law, and the House of Commons refused to grant an extra allowance to the Duke or to congratulate him on the marriage. True to form, his Whig opponents suggested that Frederica had murdered her first two husbands (notwithstanding that her first marriage was ended by divorce and not death).
	For the next 14 years, Cumberland and his family lived abroad, with only occasional visits to England, but in 1829, he decided to resume residence in London. The Times, no lover of the Duke, reported that, 'It is generally understood that the Duke of Cumberland will become a permanent inmate of the Castle. [i.e. Windsor Castle] It is said that his Royal Highness and his august family will occupy that portion of the building called The Devil's Tower.'
	In March 1829, a further and more serious scandal arose. A Captain Garth, who was rumoured to be the illegitimate son of Cumberland's sister, the Princess Sophia, 5th daughter of George III, and General Garth, brought an action to enforce an agreement ensuring him £3,000 a year in return for some papers referring to his 'rank and situation in life'. These papers were never made public, but Garth showed copies to London editors. There were references which encouraged the rumour that Captain Garth was really the son of an incestuous relationship between Ernest Augustus and his sister, Sophie. Again, these rumours may be true, or they may have been started by his Whig enemies.
	This scandal had scarcely subsided before another arose - this time allegations were made that Cumberland had made an attempt upon the virtue of Lady Lyndhurst, wife of the Lord Chancellor, in her own drawing room.
	In February 1830, Cumberland's run of scandals continued. He was rumoured to be in a liaison with Lady Graves, wife of Lord Graves, who was Cumberland's Lord of the Bedchamber and Comptroller of his household. Lord Graves wrote to his wife saying that he did not believe a word of the gossip, following which he rather spoiled the effect of his letter by cutting his throat. For further information on Lord Graves' suicide, see the note at the foot of the page containing details of that peerage. Cumberland was hissed whenever he was recognised in the streets, and a mob once pulled him off his horse outside the House of Lords.
	When his older brother King William IV died in 1837, Cumberland became King of Hanover, since Victoria, as a woman, was ineligible under Salic Law which was practised in Hanover. Between the accession of Victoria on 20 June 1837 and the birth of her first child, Princess Victoria on 21 November 1840, the Duke of Cumberland was the heir to the British throne.
	When he died in 1851, The Times wrote: 'The good to be said of the Royal Dead is little or none'. But the Hanoverians erected a statue to his memory and inscribed it: 'To the father of his country from his faithful people'.
	Mary Victoria Curzon, 1st wife of George Nathaniel Curzon, later Marquess Curzon of Kedleston (27 May 1870-18 July 1906)
	Mary Victoria Leiter and George Curzon were married in April 1895. She accompanied her husband to India when he was appointed Viceroy, such appointment meaning that she became Vicereine, the highest official title that could be held by a woman in the Indian Empire. Her stay in India's tropical climate, her demanding social responsibilities and an infection following a miscarriage led to a decline in her health which culminated in her death in 1906, aged only 36.
	An article in the Los Angeles Times of 6 Nov 1904, which discusses the superstitious nature of Anglo-Americans, included the following comments on Lady Curzon:-
	… those who are still wondering why the medical men in attendance on Lady Curzon allowed her to be removed on a stretcher from Walmer Castle to the house of a friend are evidently not aware that there is a decidedly strong element of superstition in her character. She is stubbornly opposed to going into residence in any house that has been the scene of the last days of eminent persons, and it is pretty well-known among her immediate friends that high political considerations alone caused her to fall in with her husband's wish and go to Walmer Castle. She did not forget that the late W.H. Smith died there so suddenly during his Lord Wardenship [of the Cinque Ports] that the political party with which he was identified was denied an opportunity to confer the usual peerage upon him. Lady Curzon shares such superstition with Lady Wolseley whose absolute refusal to live at Walmer resulted in the resignation of her gallant husband [sic- Lord Wolseley was never Lord Warden].
	There is also a local feeling that did not help to modify Lady Curzon's scruples. The room in which Lord Wellington died is said to be haunted, and that it is for this and no other reason that it is now just as it was left when the great soldier breathed his last there. Lady Curzon remembers too that Lord Salisbury's end came while he was still Lord Warden although he passed away at Hatfield. All these thoughts combined, working on a delicate constitution, are said to be chiefly responsible for the sudden collapse of her ladyship. So strong have been her feelings on the matter that she insisted upon her mother and sister staying at the local hotel, "The Royal", - instead of at the Castle, when they rushed to her bedside on their arrival here a week or so ago.
	Mrs. Leiter [Lady Curzon's mother] wondered why no arrangements had been made for them to stay at the Castle, especially as she had selected her rooms in anticipation of many pleasant visits during her son-in-law's occupation. When the reason was explained to her she willingly submitted to her sick child's wishes and put up at the best thing that could be done for her at the local hotel. Local gossip was busy with the suggestion that Mrs. Leiter was superstitious, too, and that in spite of her affection for her dying daughter she would not risk staying in a place that had developed so suddenly such a strange reputation. It is an undoubted fact that Lady Curzon, even at the risk of her life, demanded to be removed from the Castle.

	Copyright © 2003-2018 Leigh Rayment
	Copyright © 2020-2024 Helen Belcher OBE