PEERAGES
Last updated 02/06/2018 (19 Jan 2024)
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
NORFOLK
c 1070 to     1074	E	1	Ralph de Gael Created Earl of Norfolk c 1070 The peerage was forfeited in 1074	by 1046	c 1097
c 1140	E	1	Hugh le Bigod Created Earl of Norfolk c 1140	by 1100	c 1177
c 1177		2	Roger le Bigod	by 1150	1221
1221		3	Hugh le Bigod		Feb 1225
Feb 1225		4	Roger le Bigod	c 1213	4 Jul 1270
4 Jul 1270 to     11 Dec 1306		5	Roger le Bigod He surrendered the peerage to the Crown in 1302 and obtained a re-grant. The title became extinct on his death For information on a subsequent claim to this peerage, see the note at the foot of this page	1240	11 Dec 1306	66
16 Dec 1312	E	1	Thomas of Brotherton Created Earl of Norfolk 16 Dec 1312 5th son of Edward I	1 Jun 1300	4 Aug 1338	38
4 Aug 1338 29 Sep 1397 to     24 Mar 1399	D[L]	2	Margaret Manny Created Duchess of Norfolk for life 29 Sep 1397 On her death the Dukedom became extinct whilst the Earldom passed to -	c 1320	24 Mar 1399
24 Mar 1399 29 Sep 1397	D	3 1	Thomas Mowbray Created Duke of Norfolk 29 Sep 1397 KG 1384	22 Mar 1366	22 Sep 1399	33
22 Sep 1399		4 2	Thomas Mowbray	17 Sep 1385	8 Jun 1405	19
8 Jun 1405		5 3	John Mowbray KG 1421	1390	19 Oct 1432	42
19 Oct 1432		6 4	John Mowbray KG 1451	12 Sep 1415	6 Nov 1461	46
6 Nov 1461 to     17 Jan 1476		7	John Mowbray KG 1472 On his death the Dukedom became extinct whilst the Earldom passed to -	18 Oct 1444	17 Jan 1476	31
17 Jan 1476 to     16 Jan 1481		8	Anne Plantagenet Peerage extinct on her death	10 Dec 1472	16 Jan 1481	8
12 Jun 1476 to     22 Jun 1483	D	1	Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York Created Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Norfolk 12 Jun 1476 Peerages extinct on his death		22 Jun 1483
28 Jun 1483 to     22 Aug 1485	D	1	John Howard, 1st Lord Howard Created Duke of Norfolk 28 Jun 1483 KG 1472 He was attainted and the peerages forfeited	c 1430	22 Aug 1485
1 Feb 1514		2	Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Surrey Restored to the Dukedom 1514 Treasurer of England 1501‑1522; KG 1483	c 1443	21 May 1524
21 May 1524 to     1547 1553		3	Thomas Howard Lord High Admiral 1513‑1525; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1520‑1523; KG 1510 He was attainted and the peerages forfeited in 1547 but restored in 1553	1473	25 Aug 1554	81
25 Aug 1554 to     2 Jun 1572		4	Thomas Howard Lord Lieutenant Norfolk and Suffolk 1559; KG 1559 He was attainted and the peerages forfeited	10 Mar 1536	2 Jun 1572	36
6 Jun 1644	E	1	Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel and 4th Earl of Surrey Created Earl of Norfolk 6 Jun 1644 KG 1611	7 Jul 1585	4 Oct 1646	61
4 Oct 1646		2	Henry Frederick Howard	15 Aug 1608	17 Apr 1652	43
17 Apr 1652 29 Dec 1660	D	3 5	Thomas Howard He was restored to the dukedom in 1660	9 Mar 1627	13 Dec 1677	50
13 Dec 1677		6	Henry Howard Created Baron Howard of Castle Rising 7 Mar 1669 and Earl of Norwich 19 Oct 1672	12 Jul 1628	11 Jan 1684	55
11 Jan 1684		7	Henry Howard Lord Lieutenant Berkshire and Surrey 1682‑1701 and Norfolk 1683‑1701; KG 1685; PC 1689 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Mowbray 14 Jan 1678	11 Jan 1654	2 Apr 1701	47
2 Apr 1701		8	Thomas Howard	11 Dec 1683	23 Dec 1732	49
23 Dec 1732		9	Edward Howard	5 Jun 1686	20 Sep 1777	91
20 Sep 1777		10	Charles Howard For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	1 Dec 1720	31 Aug 1786	65
31 Aug 1786		11	Charles Howard MP for Carlisle 1780‑1786; Lord Lieutenant West Riding Yorkshire 1782‑1798 and Sussex 1807‑1815; PC 1783	14 Mar 1746	16 Dec 1815	69
16 Dec 1815		12	Bernard Edward Howard PC 1830; KG 1834	21 Nov 1765	16 Mar 1842	76
16 Mar 1842		13	Henry Charles Howard MP for Horsham 1829‑1832 and Sussex West 1832‑1841; PC 1837; KG 1848 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Maltravers 16 Aug 1841	12 Aug 1791	18 Feb 1856	64
18 Feb 1856		14	Henry Granville Fitzalan‑Howard MP for Arundel 1837‑1851 and Limerick 1851‑1852	7 Nov 1815	25 Nov 1860	45
25 Nov 1860		15	Henry Fitzalan-Howard Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1905‑1917; Postmaster General 1895‑1900; KG 1886; PC 1895	27 Dec 1847	11 Feb 1917	69
11 Feb 1917		16	Bernard Marmaduke Fitzalan‑Howard, later [1945] 13th  Lord Herries of Terregles Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1949‑1974 and Sussex West 1974‑1975; PC 1936; KG 1937	30 May 1908	31 Jan 1975	66
31 Jan 1975		17	Miles Francis Stapleton Fitzalan‑Howard KG 1983 He had previously succeeded as 12th Lord Beaumont in 1971 and as 4th Baron Howard of Glossop in 1972	21 Jul 1915	24 Jun 2002	86
24 Jun 2002		18	Edward William Fitzalan‑Howard	2 Dec 1956
NORMAN
13 Oct 1944 to     4 Feb 1950	B	1	Montagu Collet Norman Created Baron Norman 13 Oct 1944 Governor of the Bank of England 1920‑1944; PC 1923 Peerage extinct on his death	6 Sep 1871	4 Feb 1950	78
NORMANBROOK
24 Jan 1963 to     15 Jun 1967	B	1	Sir Norman Craven Brook Created Baron Normanbrook 24 Jan 1963 PC 1953 Peerage extinct on his death	29 Apr 1902	15 Jun 1967	65
NORMANBY
10 May 1694 23 Mar 1703	M D	1 1	John Sheffield, 3rd Earl of Mulgrave Created Marquess of Normanby 10 May 1694 and Duke of the County of Buckingham and of Normanby 23 Mar 1703 See "Buckinghamshire"	8 Sep 1647	24 Feb 1721	73
7 Sep 1812	V	1	Henry Phipps, 3rd Baron Mulgrave Created Viscount Normanby and Earl of Mulgrave 7 Sep 1812	14 Feb 1755	7 Apr 1831	76
7 Apr 1831 25 Jun 1838	M	2 1	Constantine Henry Phipps Created Marquess of Normanby 25 Jun 1838 MP for Scarborough 1818‑1820, Higham Ferrers 1822‑1826 and Malton 1826‑1830; Governor of Jamaica 1832‑1834; Lord Privy Seal 1834; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1835‑1839; Secretary of State for the Colonies 1839; Home Secretary 1839‑1841; PC 1832; KG 1851	15 May 1797	28 Jul 1863	66
28 Jul 1863		2	George Augustus Constantine Phipps MP for Scarborough 1847‑1851 and 1852‑1857; Governor of Nova Scotia 1858‑1863, Queensland 1871‑1874, New Zealand 1874‑1878 and Victoria 1879‑1884; PC 1851	23 Jul 1819	3 Apr 1890	70
3 Apr 1890		3	Constantine Charles Henry Phipps	29 Aug 1846	25 Aug 1932	85
25 Aug 1932		4	Oswald Constantine John Phipps Lord Lieutenant Yorkshire North Riding Yorkshire 1965‑1974 and Yorkshire North 1974‑1987; KG 1985	29 Jul 1912	30 Jan 1994	81
30 Jan 1994		5	Constantine Edmund Walter Phipps	24 Feb 1954
NORMAND
6 Jan 1947 to     5 Oct 1962	B[L]		Wilfred Guild Normand Created Baron Normand for life 6 Jan 1947 MP for Edinburgh West 1931‑1935; Solicitor General [S] 1929; Lord Advocate 1933‑1935; Lord Justice General of Scotland 1935‑1947; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1947‑1953; PC 1933 Peerage extinct on his death	6 May 1884	5 Oct 1962	78
NORMANTON
4 Feb 1806	E[I]	1	Charles Agar Created Baron Somerton 12 Jun 1795, Viscount Somerton 30 Dec 1800 and Earl of Normanton 4 Feb 1806 Archbishop of Cashel 1779‑1801 and Dublin 1801‑1809; PC [I] 1779	22 Dec 1736	14 Jul 1809	72
14 Jul 1809		2	Welbore Ellis Agar	20 Nov 1778	26 Aug 1868	89
26 Aug 1868		3	James Charles Herbert Welbore Ellis Agar Created Baron Somerton 9 Apr 1873 MP for Wilton 1841‑1852	17 Sep 1818	19 Dec 1896	78
19 Dec 1896		4	Sidney James Agar	9 Apr 1865	25 Nov 1933	68
25 Nov 1933		5	Edward John Sidney Christian Welbore Ellis Agar	29 Mar 1910	28 Jan 1967	56
28 Jan 1967		6	Shaun James Christian Welbore Ellis Agar He succeeded to the Barony of Mendip in 1974	21 Aug 1945	13 Feb 2019	73
13 Feb 2019		7	James Shaun Christian Welbore Ellis Agar, also 10th Baron Mendip	7 Sep 1982
NORRIE
22 Aug 1957	B	1	Sir Charles Willoughby Moke Norrie Created Baron Norrie 22 Aug 1957 Governor of South Australia 1944‑1952; Governor General of New Zealand 1952‑1957	26 Sep 1893	25 May 1977	83
25 May 1977		2	George Willoughby Moke Norrie	27 Apr 1936
NORRIS DE RYCOTE
8 May 1572	B	1	Henry Norris Summoned to Parliament as Lord Norris de Rycote 8 May 1572 MP for Berkshire 1547‑1552 and Oxfordshire 1571‑1572	c 1530	Jul 1601
Jul 1601		2	Francis Norris Created Viscount Thame and Earl of Berkshire 28 Jan 1621	6 Jul 1582	29 Jan 1624	41
29 Jan 1624		3	Elizabeth Wray		28 Nov 1645
28 Nov 1645		4	Bridget Bertie	12 May 1627	24 Mar 1657	29
24 Mar 1657		5	James Bertie He was created Earl of Abingdon in 1682 with which title this peerage then merged		22 May 1699
NORTH
17 Feb 1554	B	1	Edward North Summoned to Parliament as Lord North 17 Feb 1554 MP for Cambridgeshire 1547‑1552 and 1553; Lord Lieutenant Cambridge 1559	c 1496	31 Dec 1564
31 Dec 1564		2	Roger North MP for Cambridgeshire 1555, 1559 and 1563‑1564	c 1529	3 Dec 1600
3 Dec 1600		3	Dudley North	18 Sep 1582	16 Jan 1666	83
16 Jan 1666		4	Dudley North MP for Horsham 1628‑1629, Cambridgeshire 1640‑1648 and Cambridge 1660	1 Nov 1602	24 Jun 1677	74
24 Jun 1677		5	Charles North	c 1636	Jan 1690
Jan 1690		6	William North Lord Lieutenant Cambridge 1711‑1715; PC 1711	22 Dec 1673	31 Oct 1734	60
31 Oct 1734		7	Francis North, 3rd Baron of Guilford, later [1752] 1st Earl of Guilford	13 Apr 1704	4 Aug 1790	86
4 Aug 1790		8	Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford	13 Apr 1732	5 Aug 1792	60
5 Aug 1792 to     20 Apr 1802		9	George Augustus North, 3rd Earl of Guilford On his death the peerage fell into abeyance	11 Sep 1757	20 Apr 1802	44
11 Sep 1841		10	Susan North Abeyance terminated in her favour	6 Feb 1797	5 Mar 1884	87
5 Mar 1884		11	William Henry John North	5 Oct 1836	8 Apr 1932	95
8 Apr 1932		12	William Frederick John North	13 Oct 1860	10 Dec 1938	78
10 Dec 1938 to     19 Dec 1941		13	John Dudley North On his death the peerage again fell into abeyance	7 Jun 1917	19 Dec 1941	24
NORTHALLERTON
9 Nov 1706 to     1727	V	1	George Augustus Created Baron of Tewkesbury, Viscount Northallerton, Earl of Milford Haven and Marquess and Duke of Cambridge 9 Nov 1706 He succeeded as George II in 1727 when the peerage merged with the Crown	30 Oct 1683	25 Oct 1760	76
16 Jul 1917	M	1	Adolphus Charles Alexander Ladislaus Cambridge Created Viscount Northallerton, Earl of Eltham and Marquess of Cambridge 16 Jul 1917	13 Aug 1868	24 Oct 1927	59
NORTHAMPTON
1072 to     31 May 1075	E	1	Waltheof Created Earl of Northampton 1072 Peerage extinct on his death		31 May 1075
c 1080 to     1109	E	1	Simon Saint-Lis Created Earl of Northampton c 1080 On his death the peerage appears to have reverted to the Crown until -		1109
c 1140		2	Simon Saint-Lis		Aug 1153
Aug 1153 to     1184		3	Simon Saint-Lis Peerage extinct on his death	c 1138	1184
16 Mar 1337	E	1	William de Bohun Created Earl of Northampton 16 Mar 1337 KG 1350	c 1310	16 Sep 1360
16 Sep 1360 to     16 Jan 1373		2	Humphrey de Bohun KG 1365 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	1341	16 Jan 1373	31
16 Feb 1547 to     Aug 1553 13 Jan 1559 to     28 Oct 1571	M	1	William Parr, 1st Earl of Essex Created Marquess of Northampton 16 Feb 1547 The title was forfeited 1553 but restored 13 Jan 1559 MP for Northamptonshire 1529‑1536; KG 1543 Peerage extinct on his death	14 Aug 1513	28 Oct 1571	58
13 Mar 1604 to     15 Jun 1614	E	1	Henry Howard Created Baron Howard of Marnhull and Earl of Northampton 13 Mar 1604 Lord Privy Seal 1608‑1614; KG 1605 Peerages extinct on his death	25 Feb 1540	15 Jun 1614	74
2 Aug 1618	E	1	William Compton, 2nd Lord Compton Created Earl of Northampton 2 Aug 1618 KG 1628	by 1572	24 Jun 1630
24 Jun 1630		2	Spencer Compton MP for Ludlow 1621‑1622; Lord Lieutenant Warwick and Gloucester 1630 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Compton 1 Apr 1626	May 1601	19 Mar 1643	41
19 Mar 1643		3	James Compton Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1660‑1681	19 Aug 1622	15 Dec 1681	59
15 Dec 1681		4	George Compton Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1686‑1687 and 1689‑1715; PC 1702	18 Oct 1664	15 Apr 1727	62
15 Apr 1727		5	James Compton MP for Warwickshire 1710‑1711 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Compton 28 Dec 1711	2 May 1687	3 Oct 1754	67
3 Oct 1754		6	George Compton MP for Tamworth 1727 and Northampton 1727‑1754	1692	6 Dec 1758	66
6 Dec 1758		7	Charles Compton	22 Jul 1737	18 Oct 1763	26
18 Oct 1763		8	Spencer Compton MP for Northampton 1761‑1763; Lord Lieutenant Northampton 1771‑1796	16 Aug 1738	7 Apr 1796	57
7 Apr 1796 7 Sep 1812	M	9 1	Charles Compton Created Baron Wilmington, Earl Compton and Marquess of Northampton 7 Sep 1812 MP for Northampton 1784‑1796; Lord Lieutenant Northampton 1796‑1828	24 Mar 1760	24 May 1828	68
24 May 1828		2	Spencer Joshua Alwyne Compton MP for Northampton 1812‑1820	2 Jan 1790	17 Jan 1851	61
17 Jan 1851		3	Charles Douglas-Compton	26 May 1816	3 Mar 1877	60
3 Mar 1877		4	William Compton KG 1885	20 Aug 1818	11 Sep 1897	79
11 Sep 1897		5	William George Spencer Scott Compton MP for Stratford upon Avon 1885‑1886 and Barnsley 1889‑1897; Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1912‑1913; KG 1908	23 Apr 1851	15 Jun 1913	62
15 Jun 1913		6	William Bingham Compton	6 Aug 1885	30 Jan 1978	92
30 Jan 1978		7	Spencer Douglas David Compton	2 Apr 1946
NORTHBOURNE
5 Nov 1884	B	1	Sir Walter Charles James, 2nd baronet Created Baron Northbourne 5 Nov 1884 MP for Hull 1837‑1847	3 Jun 1816	4 Feb 1893	76
4 Feb 1893		2	Walter Henry James MP for Gateshead 1874‑1893	25 Mar 1846	27 Jan 1923	76
27 Jan 1923		3	Walter John James	2 Sep 1869	22 Dec 1932	63
22 Dec 1932		4	Walter Ernest Christopher James	18 Jan 1896	17 Jun 1982	86
17 Jun 1982		5	Christopher George Walter James [Elected hereditary peer 1999‑2018]	18 Feb 1926	8 Sep 2019	93
8 Sep 2019		6	Charles Walter Henri James	14 Jun 1960
NORTHBROOK
4 Jan 1866	B	1	Sir Francis Thornhill Baring, 3rd baronet Created Baron Northbrook 4 Jan 1866 MP for Portsmouth 1826‑1865; Chancellor of the Exchequer 1839‑1841; First Lord of the Admiralty 1849‑1852; PC 1839	20 Apr 1796	6 Sep 1866	70
6 Sep 1866 10 Jun 1876	E	2 1	Thomas George Baring Created Viscount Baring and Earl of Northbrook 10 Jun 1876 MP for Penryn & Falmouth 1857‑1866; Viceroy of India 1872‑1876. First Lord of the Admiralty 1880‑1885; Lord Lieutenant Hampshire 1890‑1904; PC 1869	22 Jan 1826	15 Nov 1904	78
15 Nov 1904 to     12 Apr 1929		3 2	Francis George Baring MP for Winchester 1880‑1885 and Biggleswade 1886‑1892 On his death the Earldom became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	6 Dec 1850	12 Apr 1929	78
12 Apr 1929		4	Francis Arthur Baring	20 Jul 1882	15 Dec 1947	65
15 Dec 1947		5	Francis John Baring	31 May 1915	4 Dec 1990	75
4 Dec 1990		6	Francis Thomas Baring [Elected hereditary peer 1999-]	21 Feb 1954
NORTHCHURCH
13 Jan 1964 to     25 Nov 1985	B[L]		Frances Joan Davidson Created Baroness Northchurch for life 13 Jan 1964 MP for Hemel Hempstead 1937‑1959 Peerage extinct on her death	29 May 1894	25 Nov 1985	91
NORTHCLIFFE
27 Dec 1905 14 Jan 1918 to     14 Aug 1922	B V	1 1	Sir Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1st baronet Created Baron Northcliffe 27 Dec 1905 and Viscount Northcliffe 14 Jan 1918 Peerages extinct on his death For further information on the widow of Lord Northcliffe, see the note at the foot of this page	15 Jul 1865	14 Aug 1922	57
NORTHCOTE
20 Jan 1900 to     29 Sep 1911	B	1	Sir Henry Stafford Northcote, 1st baronet Created Baron Northcote 20 Jan 1900 MP for Exeter 1880‑1899; Governor of Bombay 1899‑1903; Governor General of Australia 1904‑1908; PC 1909 Peerage extinct on his death	18 Nov 1846	29 Sep 1911	64
NORTHESK
1 Nov 1647	E[S]	1	John Carnegie, 1st Lord Lour Created Lord Lour and Eglismauldie and Earl of Ethie 1 Nov 1647 He exchanged these titles for those of Earl of Northesk and Lord Rosehill on 25 October 1666	c 1580	19 Jan 1667
19 Jan 1667		2	David Carnegie	by 1627	12 Dec 1679
12 Dec 1679		3	David Carnegie	Nov 1643	Oct 1688	44
Oct 1688		4	David Carnegie	by 1685	14 Jan 1729
14 Jan 1729		5	David Carnegie	11 Jun 1701	24 Jun 1741	40
24 Jun 1741		6	George Carnegie	2 Aug 1716	22 Jan 1792	75
22 Jan 1792		7	William Carnegie	10 Apr 1758	28 May 1831	73
28 May 1831		8	William Hopetoun Carnegie	16 Oct 1794	5 Dec 1878	84
5 Dec 1878		9	George John Carnegie	1 Dec 1843	9 Sep 1891	47
9 Sep 1891		10	David John Carnegie	1 Dec 1865	5 Dec 1921	56
5 Dec 1921		11	David Ludovic George Hopetoun Carnegie	24 Sep 1901	7 Nov 1963	62
7 Nov 1963		12	John Douglas Carnegie	16 Feb 1895	22 Jul 1975	80
22 Jul 1975		13	Robert Andrew Carnegie	24 Jun 1926	26 Jan 1994	67
26 Jan 1994		14	David John MacRae Carnegie [Elected hereditary peer 1999-2010]	3 Nov 1954	28 Mar 2010	55
28 Mar 2010		15	Patrick Charles Carnegy For further information on this peer and how he inherited the title, see the note at the foot of this page	23 Sep 1940
NORTHFIELD
20 Jan 1976 to     26 Apr 2013	B[L]		William Donald Chapman Created Baron Northfield for life 20 Jan 1976 MP for Northfield 1951‑1970 Peerage extinct on his death	25 Nov 1923	26 Apr 2013	89
NORTHINGTON
19 May 1764	E	1	Robert Henley Created Baron Henley 27 Mar 1760 and Earl of Northington 19 May 1764 MP for Bath 1747‑1757; Attorney General 1756‑1757; Lord Chancellor 1757‑1766; Lord President of the Council 1766‑1767; Lord Lieutenant Hampshire 1764‑1771; PC 1757	1708	14 Jan 1772	63
14 Jan 1772 to     5 Jul 1786		2	Robert Henley MP for Hampshire 1768‑1772; Viceroy of Ireland 1783‑1784; KT 1773; PC 1783 Peerage extinct on his death	3 Jan 1747	5 Jul 1786	39
28 Jun 1885	B	1	Anthony Henley Henley, 3rd Baron Henley Created Baron Northington 28 Jun 1885 See "Henley" with which title this peerage remains united	12 Apr 1825	27 Nov 1898	73
NORTHLAND
5 Jul 1791	V[I]	1	Thomas Knox Created Baron Welles 8 Jan 1781 and Viscount Northland 5 Jul 1791 MP [I] for Dungannon 1755‑1781	20 Apr 1729	5 Nov 1818	89
5 Nov 1818		2	Thomas Knox He was created Earl of Ranfurly in 1831 with which title these peerages then merged	5 Aug 1754	26 Apr 1840	85
NORTHOVER
1 May 2000	B[L]		Lindsay Patricia Granshaw Created Baroness Northover for life 1 May 2000 PC 2015	21 Aug 1954
NORTHUMBERLAND
16 Jul 1377 to     1406	E	1	Henry Percy, 4th Lord Percy Created Earl of Northumberland 16 Jul 1377 KG c 1368 The peerage was forfeited in 1406	1342	19 Feb 1408	65
11 Nov 1414		2	Henry Percy Restored to the peerage 1414	3 Feb 1393	23 May 1455	62
23 May 1455 to     29 Mar 1461		3	Henry Percy He was attainted and the peerage forfeited	25 Jul 1421	29 Mar 1461	39
c 1470		4	Henry Percy Restored to the peerage c 1470 KG 1474	c 1449	28 Apr 1489
28 Apr 1489		5	Henry Algernon Percy KG 1495	13 Jan 1478	19 May 1527	49
19 May 1527 to     30 Jun 1537		6	Henry Percy KG 1531 On his death the heir to the peerage was under attainder with the result that the peerage was forfeited	c 1502	30 Jun 1537
11 Oct 1551 to     22 Aug 1553	D	1	John Dudley Created Viscount Lisle 12 Mar 1543, Earl of Warwick 16 Feb 1547 and Duke of Northumberland 11 Oct 1551 KG 1543 He was attainted and the peerage forfeited	c 1505	22 Aug 1553
1 May 1557	E	1	Thomas Percy Created Baron Percy 30 Apr 1557 and Earl of Northumberland 1 May 1557 KG 1563	10 Jun 1528	22 Aug 1572	44
22 Aug 1572		2	Henry Percy	c 1532	21 Jun 1585
21 Jun 1585		3	Henry Percy Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1604; KG 1593	Apr 1564	5 Nov 1632	68
5 Nov 1632		4	Algernon Percy He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Percy 28 Mar 1626 MP for Sussex 1624-1625 and Chichester 1625‑1627; Lord Lieutenant Northumberland and Sussex 1660‑1668; KG 1635	13 Oct 1602	13 Oct 1668	66
13 Oct 1668 to     31 May 1670		5	Josceline Percy Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1660‑1670 and Sussex 1668‑1670 Peerage extinct on his death For further information regarding a subsequent claim to this peerage, see the note at the foot of this page	4 Jul 1644	31 May 1670	25
1 Oct 1674 6 Apr 1683 to     3 Jul 1716	E D	1 1	George Fitzroy Created Baron of Pontefract, Viscount Falmouth and Earl of Northumberland 1 Oct 1674 and Duke of Northumberland 6 Apr 1683 Illegitimate son of Charles II; Lord Lieutenant Surrey 1702‑1714 and Berkshire; KG 1684; PC 1713 Peerages extinct on his death	28 Dec 1665	3 Jul 1716	50
2 Oct 1749	E	1	Algernon Seymour, 7th Duke of Somerset Created Baron Warkworth and Earl of Northumberland 2 Oct 1749, and Baron Cockermouth and Earl of Egremont 3 Oct 1749 For details of the special remainders included in the creation of the Barony of Warkworth and Earldom of Northumberland, see the note at the foot of this page	11 Nov 1684	7 Feb 1750	65
7 Feb 1750 22 Oct 1766	D	2 1	Sir Hugh Percy, 4th baronet Created Earl Percy and Duke of Northumberland 22 Oct 1766 and Baron Lovaine 28 Jan 1784 MP for Middlesex 1740‑1750; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1763‑1765; Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1753‑1786 and Middlesex 1763‑1786; KG 1756; PC 1762	c 1714	6 Jun 1786
6 Jun 1786		2	Hugh Percy MP for Westminster 1763‑1776; Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1786‑1798 and 1802‑1817; KG 1788	14 Aug 1742	10 Jul 1817	74
10 Jul 1817		3	Hugh Percy MP for Buckingham 1806, Westminster 1806, Launceston 1806‑1807 and Northumberland 1807‑1812; Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1817‑1847; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1829-1830; KG 1819; PC 1825 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Percy 12 Mar 1812	20 Apr 1785	11 Feb 1847	61
11 Feb 1847		4	Algernon Percy Created Baron Prudhoe 27 Nov 1816 First Lord of the Admiralty 1852; PC 1852; KG 1853	19 Dec 1792	12 Feb 1865	72
12 Feb 1865		5	George Percy, 2nd Earl of Beverley MP for Bere Alston 1799‑1830; PC 1842	22 Jun 1778	21 Aug 1867	89
21 Aug 1867		6	Algernon George Percy MP for Bere Alston 1831‑1832 and Northumberland North 1852‑1867; Vice President of the Board of Trade 1859; Lord Privy Seal 1878‑1880; Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1877‑1899; PC 1859; KG 1886	20 May 1810	2 Jan 1899	88
2 Jan 1899		7	Henry George Percy MP for Northumberland North 1868‑1885; Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1904‑1918; KG 1899; PC 1874 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Lovaine 22 Jul 1887	29 May 1846	14 May 1918	71
14 May 1918		8	Alan Ian Percy Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1918‑1930; KG 1925	17 Apr 1880	23 Aug 1930	50
23 Aug 1930		9	Henry George Alan Percy	15 Jul 1912	21 May 1940	27
21 May 1940		10	Hugh Algernon Percy Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1956‑1984; KG 1959; PC 1973	6 Apr 1914	11 Oct 1988	74
11 Oct 1988		11	Henry Alan Walter Richard Percy	1 Jul 1953	31 Oct 1995	42
31 Oct 1995		12	Ralph George Algernon Percy	16 Nov 1956
NORTHWICK
26 Oct 1797	B	1	Sir John Rushout, 5th baronet Created Baron Northwick 26 Oct 1797 MP for Evesham 1761‑1796	23 Jul 1738	20 Oct 1800	62
20 Oct 1800		2	John Rushout	16 Feb 1770	20 Jan 1859	88
20 Jan 1859 to     18 Nov 1887		3	George Rushout MP for Evesham 1837‑1841 and Worcestershire East 1847‑1859 Peerage extinct on his death	30 Aug 1811	18 Nov 1887	76
NORTHWODE
8 Jan 1313	B	1	John de Northwode Summoned to Parliament as Lord Northwode 8 Jan 1313	1254	26 May 1319	64
26 May 1319		2	Roger de Northwode	1307	7 Nov 1361	54
7 Nov 1361 to     27 Feb 1378		3	John de Northwode Peerage extinct on his death		27 Feb 1378
NORTON
16 Apr 1878	B	1	Sir Charles Bowyer Adderley Created Baron Norton 16 Apr 1878 MP for Staffordshire North 1841‑1878; President of the Board of Health 1858‑1859; President of the Board of Trade 1874‑1878; PC 1858	2 Aug 1814	28 Mar 1905	90
28 Mar 1905		2	Charles Leigh Adderley	10 Mar 1846	4 Dec 1926	80
4 Dec 1926		3	Ralph Bowyer Adderley	9 Oct 1872	17 Oct 1933	61
17 Oct 1933		4	Ronald Wollstan Fleetwood Adderley	15 Oct 1885	4 Jan 1944	58
4 Jan 1944		5	Henry Arden Adderley	26 Sep 1854	1 Jan 1945	90
1 Jan 1945		6	Hubert Bowyer Arden Adderley	21 Feb 1886	17 Feb 1961	74
17 Feb 1961		7	John Arden Adderley	24 Nov 1915	24 Sep 1993	77
24 Sep 1993		8	James Nigel Arden Adderley	2 Jun 1947
NORTON OF LOUTH
1 Aug 1998	B[L]		Philip Norton Created Baron Norton of Louth for life 1 Aug 1998	5 Mar 1951
NORWICH
25 Feb 1342	B	1	John de Norwich Summoned to Parliament as Lord Norwich 25 Feb 1342		15 Aug 1362
15 Aug 1362 to     1374		2	John de Norwich Peerage extinct on his death	1348	1374	26
24 Oct 1626 to     27 Sep 1637	E	1	Edward Denny, 1st Lord Denny de Waltham Created Earl of Norwich 24 Oct 1626 Peerage extinct on his death	14 Aug 1569	27 Sep 1637	68
28 Nov 1644	E	1	George Goring, 1st Baron Goring Created Earl of Norwich 28 Nov 1644 Lewes 1621-1628	c 1583	6 Jan 1663
6 Jan 1663 to     3 Mar 1671		2	Charles Goring Peerage extinct on his death	c 1615	3 Mar 1671
19 Oct 1672	E	1	Henry Howard Created Baron Howard of Castle Rising 7 Mar 1669 and Earl of Norwich 19 Oct 1672 See "Norfolk" - these creations became extinct in 1777	12 Jul 1628	11 Jan 1684	55
2 Jul 1784	E	1	Alexander Gordon, 4th Duke of Gordon Created Baron Gordon of Huntley and Earl of Norwich 2 Jul 1784 See "Gordon"	18 Jun 1743	17 Jun 1827	83
5 Jul 1952	V	1	Sir Alfred Duff Cooper Created Viscount Norwich 5 Jul 1952 MP for Oldham 1924‑1929 and St. Georges, Hanover Square 1931‑1945; Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1934‑1935; Secretary of State for War 1935‑1937; First Lord of the Admiralty 1937‑1938; Minister of Information 1940‑1941; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1941‑1943; PC 1935	22 Feb 1890	1 Jan 1954	63
1 Jan 1954		2	John Julius Cooper	15 Sep 1929	1 Jun 2018	88
1 Jun 2018		3	Jason Charles Duff Bede Cooper	27 Oct 1959
NORWOOD
7 Nov 1797	B[I]	1	Grace Toler Created Baroness Norwood 7 Nov 1797		21 Jul 1822
21 Jul 1822		2	Daniel Toler He succeeded to the barony of Norbury in 1831	c 1780	30 Jan 1832
30 Jan 1832		3	Hector John Graham Toler He had previously succeeded to the Earldom of Norbury in 1831 with which title this peerage then merged and so remains	27 Jun 1781	3 Jan 1839	57
NOTTINGHAM
15 Jul 1377 to     10 Feb 1382	E	1	John de Mowbray, 5th Lord Mowbray and 6th Lord Segrave Created Earl of Nottingham 15 Jul 1377 Peerage extinct on his death	1 Aug 1365	10 Feb 1382	16
12 Feb 1383	E	1	Thomas de Mowbray Created Earl of Nottingham 12 Feb 1383 and Duke of Norfolk 29 Sep 1397 See "Norfolk" - extinct 1476	22 Mar 1366	22 Sep 1399	33
12 Jun 1476 to     22 Jun 1483	D	1	Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York Created Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Norfolk 12 Jun 1476 Peerages extinct on his death		22 Jun 1483
28 Jun 1483 to     14 Feb 1492	E	1	William de Berkeley Created Viscount Berkeley 21 Apr 1481, Earl of Nottingham 28 Jun 1483 and Marquess of Berkeley 28 Jan 1489 Peerages extinct on his death	1426	14 Feb 1492	65
18 Jun 1525 to     22 Jul 1536	E	1	Henry Fitzroy Created Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Richmond & Somerset 18 Jun 1525 Illegitimate son of Henry VIII Peerages extinct on his death	1519	22 Jul 1536	17
22 Oct 1596	E	1	Charles Howard, 2nd Baron Howard of Effingham Created Earl of Nottingham 22 Oct 1596 MP for Surrey 1562‑1567 and 1572‑1573; KG 1575	c 1536	14 Dec 1624
14 Dec 1624		2	Charles Howard MP for Bletchingley 1597, Surrey 1597‑1598, Sussex 1601‑1611 and Shoreham 1614; Lord Lieutenant Surrey 1621‑1635	17 Sep 1579	3 Oct 1642	63
3 Oct 1642 to     26 Apr 1681		3	Charles Howard Peerage extinct on his death	25 Dec 1610	26 Apr 1681	70
12 May 1681	E	1	Sir Heneage Finch, 1st baronet Created Baron Finch of Daventry 10 Jan 1673 and Earl of Nottingham 12 May 1681 MP for Canterbury 1660 and Oxford University 1661‑1673; Solicitor General 1660; Attorney General 1670‑1673; Lord Chancellor 1675‑1682	23 Dec 1621	18 Dec 1682	60
18 Dec 1682		2	Daniel Finch He succeeded to the Earldom of Winchilsea in 1729 with which title this peerage continues to be united	2 Jul 1647	1 Jan 1730	82
NOVAR
6 Dec 1920 to     30 Mar 1934	V	1	Sir Ronald Crauford Munro‑Ferguson Created Viscount Novar 6 Dec 1920 MP for Ross & Cromarty 1884‑1885 and Leith Burghs 1886‑1914; Governor General of Australia 1914‑1920; Secretary of State for Scotland 1922‑1924; PC 1910; KT 1926 Peerage extinct on his death	6 Mar 1860	30 Mar 1934	74
NUFFIELD
13 Jan 1934 24 Jan 1938 to     22 Aug 1963	B V	1 1	Sir William Richard Morris, 1st baronet Created Baron Nuffield 13 Jan 1934 and Viscount Nuffield 24 Jan 1938 CH 1958 Peerages extinct on his death	10 Oct 1877	22 Aug 1963	85
NUGENT
19 Jan 1767 21 Jul 1776	B[I] E[I]	1 1	Robert Nugent Created Baron Nugent and Viscount Clare 19 Jan 1767 and Earl Nugent 21 Jul 1776 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of the Earldom of 1776, see the note at the foot of this page MP for St. Mawes 1741‑1754 and 1774‑1784, and Bristol 1754‑1774; President of the Board of Trade 1766-1768; PC 1759; PC [I] 1768	1702	13 Oct 1788	86
13 Oct 1788		2	George Nugent-Temple-Grenville He had previously been created Marquess of Buckingham in 1784 with which title this peerage then merged until its extinction in 1889	17 Jun 1753	11 Feb 1813	59
26 Dec 1800	B[I]	1	Mary Elizabeth Nugent-Temple-Grenville, Marchioness of Buckingham Created Baroness Nugent 29 Dec 1800 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of this peerage, see the note at the foot of this page		16 Mar 1812
16 Mar 1812 to     26 Nov 1850		2	George Nugent-Grenville MP for Buckingham 1810‑1812 and Aylesbury 1812‑1832 and 1847‑1850 Peerage extinct on his death	31 Dec 1788	26 Nov 1850	61
22 Aug 1960 to     27 Apr 1973	B	1	Sir Terence Edmund Gascoigne Nugent Created Baron Nugent 22 Aug 1960 Peerage extinct on his death	11 Aug 1895	27 Apr 1973	77
NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
31 May 1966 to     16 Mar 1994	B[L]		Sir George Richard Hodges Nugent, 1st baronet Created Baron Nugent of Guildford for life 31 May 1966 MP for Guildford 1950‑1966; PC 1962 Peerage extinct on his death	6 Jun 1907	16 Mar 1994	86
NUNBURNHOLME
16 Jan 1906	B	1	Charles Henry Wilson Created Baron Nunburnholme 16 Jan 1906 MP for Hull 1874‑1885 and Hull West 1885‑1905	22 Apr 1833	28 Oct 1907	74
28 Oct 1907		2	Charles Henry Wellesley Wilson MP for Hull West 1906‑1907; Lord Lieutenant East Riding Yorkshire 1908‑1924	24 Jan 1875	15 Aug 1924	49
15 Aug 1924		3	Charles John Wilson	25 Apr 1904	1 Jan 1974	69
1 Jan 1974		4	Ben Charles Wilson	16 Jan 1928	28 Jul 1998	70
28 Jul 1998		5	Charles Thomas Wilson	27 May 1935	20 Nov 2000	65
20 Nov 2000		6	Stephen Charles Wilson	29 Nov 1973
NUNEHAM
1 Dec 1749	V	1	Simon Harcourt, 2nd Viscount Harcourt Created Viscount Nuneham and Earl Harcourt 1 Dec 1749 See "Harcourt"	1714	16 Sep 1777	63
3 Jan 1917	V	1	Lewis Harcourt Created Baron Nuneham and Viscount Harcourt 3 Jan 1917 See "Harcourt"	31 Jan 1863	24 Feb 1922	59
NYE
19 Jul 2010	B[L]		Susan Jane Nye Created Baroness Nye for life 19 Jul 2010	17 May 1955

	The claim to the Earldom of Norfolk made by Lord Mowbray
	Between 1901 and 1906 the House of Lords Committee for Privileges heard a petition made by Lord Mowbray for the termination of the abeyance of the earldom of Norfolk which had been created in 1312 for Thomas de Brotherton, son of Edward I. Mowbray conceded that the earldom of Norfolk created in 1644 was held by the Duke of Norfolk, but he argued that there was no reason why these earldoms, each with the same designation, could not exist at the same time. Mowbray's claim rested upon the validity of the surrender of the earldom to the King in 1302 and its subsequent re-creation in 1312, but the Law Lords held that such surrender was invalid in law, since it was settled law [at the time of this judgment] that a peer could not surrender, disown or extinguish his honour.
	The inability to disown a peerage was abolished under the Peerage Act 1963, under which peerages can now be disclaimed for life.
	The following lengthy report on the outcome of this case appeared in the London Daily Telegraph of 28 November 1906:-
	Yesterday the House of Lords Committee for Privileges gave their decision in regard to the petition of Lord Mowbray that the abeyance of the Earldom of Norfolk, granted to Thomas de Brotherton in 1312, should be determined in his favour as eldest co-heir. The claimant did not dispute that to the Earldom of Norfolk, created in 1644, the present Duke of Norfolk as heir male appeared to be undoubtedly entitled, but the creation of 1312 and the creation of 1644, though each carrying the same designation, were two distinct earldoms with different remainders, and heritable by different individuals. That two people, it was contended, could enjoy different peerages, with the same designation and at the same time, was not a new doctrine. The main contention of the Duke of Norfolk in opposition to the claim of Lord Mowbray was that the King, having granted the title of Earl of Norfolk to Sir Thomas Howard by patent of June 6, 1644, the title of Earl of Norfolk formerly granted to Thomas de Brotherton was not at the disposal of the Crown to grant to Lord Mowbray. The petition of Lord Mowbray could only be successful if it were held that at the date of the patent in 1644, the earldom of Norfolk was not wholly in the disposal of the King, but was in abeyance.
	Claimant was represented by Sir R. Finlay, K.C. [later Viscount Finlay], Mr [George Dames] Burtchaell [1853‑1921], and Mr. A[rthur] C[harles] Fox-Davies [1871‑1928]; and the Duke of Norfolk by Mr. Warmington K.C. [later Sir Cornelius Warmington, 1st baronet], Lord [Robert] Cecil K.C. [later Viscount Cecil of Chelwood] and Mr. H. Stuart Moore. The Attorney-General [Sir John Walton], Mr. G[eorge] R[anken] Askwith [later Baron Askwith], and Mr. Geoffrey Ellis appeared for the Crown.
	The Earl of Onslow presided over yesterday's meeting of the committee, the other members present being the Earl of Halsbury, Viscount Knutsford, Lords Dunboyne, Ashbourne, James of Hereford, Davey, and Robertson.
	The Earl of Halsbury, in moving that the committee report to the House that the claimant had not established his claim to the dignity in question, said: In this case the claimant seeks to establish his right to the earldom of Norfolk, an earldom created in the person of Hugh Le Bygod in 1135. It may be assumed that he has satisfactorily established his pedigree, but in the course of it he is compelled to admit that he is not heir to the earldom so created, but has to rely on the surrender of the earldom to the King and a grant of the earldom so surrendered to Thomas de Brotherton in 1312. [The 5th Earl of this creation surrendered his earldom to the King in 1302 and received it back entailed "to the heirs of his body". This had the effect of disinheriting his brother and meant that the earldom thus became extinct on the death of the 5th Earl in 1306.] Now the claimant has undoubtedly proved his descent from Thomas de Brotherton, but the fatal blot in his case is that the surrender upon which he relies is invalid in law. It is settled law that no peer can disown or extinguish his honour, but that it descends unto his descendants neither by surrender, grant, fine, or any other conveyance. This has repeatedly held to be the law for some centuries, and finally, in the report on the dignity of a peerage it is stated that such must now be held to be the law. This is binding on your lordships. Something was suggested by the learned counsel as to what law or what understanding of the law your lordships ought to apply. I know of no such jurisdiction as applicable to the law of England. Our duty is to be the best of our ability to ascertain what the law is, and, having ascertained it, to give effect to it; to alter it or even modify it is the function of the Legislature, and not of your Lordships' House. No stronger illustration of this principle can be given than when, so lately as 1818, the Court of King's Bench, with Lord Ellenborough presiding, felt itself compelled to allow a claim to wager of battle in an appeal of murder, and but for the intervention of an Act of Parliament, 59 George III, some of his Majesty's judges might have had to preside over a single combat between the appellant and his antagonist. [For further information, see the Wikipedia article "Ashford v Thornton".] I think Sir R. Finlay was correct in saying that the King's writ, followed by a sitting in Parliament, of itself created a peerage, because, assuming it did, it would not of itself create an earldom. An earldom was an office as well as a dignity, and the office was full of the heir of the Bygods, and the rank of an earl could not be conferred merely by the Sovereign addressing the peer by that title even if it had been possible to create two earldoms for the same county. The somewhat archaic form which up to the present day accompanies the creation of an earldom shows the manner in which such a dignity can be created.
	Lord Ashbourne quoted the charter of Edward II in 1312 to show that the earldom then granted was the earldom that had been held by Roger de Bygod, and had been surrendered by him to King Edward I in 1302. That the charter conferred a new and independent earldom could not, he thought, be maintained. The fact that Thomas de Brotherton was summoned to Parliament under the 1312 grant could not be considered as conferring any right to the earldom apart from the charter. Proceeding, Lord Ashbourne said: Assuming the pedigree of the claimant to be established (and it is not disputed) and that there is no constitutional or legal difficulty in applying the practice of calling out of abeyance to earldoms as well as to baronies, has Lord Mowbray made out his claim to the Earldom of Norfolk granted to Thomas de Brotherton in 1312? That earldom was the earldom of Roger de Bygod, as held by him at the date of its surrender to King Edward I in 1302. If that surrender was legal according to peerage law, then the earldom of Roger de Bygod was vested in the Crown, and could not be re-granted in any subsequent year to any other subject. But was it legally competent for an earl or any other peer to surrender or destroy his earldom or peerage? Can any peer, by his mere personal act, oust and kill the rights of those entitled in remainder - it might be his children, brothers, or near kinsmen? Roger de Bygod had a brother living in 1302, and other kinsmen are stated to have been subsequently in existence. Supposing a claimant should now appear, proving a clear descent from a Bygod entitled to the old earldom, what answer could either of the parties here make in opposition? The question really is narrowed to this, had Roger de Bygod the legal right to make a valid surrender of the Earldom of Norfolk in 1302? The law on the subject does not now appear open to any doubt, and whenever the question came before your lordships' House the opinions expressed gave no sanction to any contrary contention. In 1612 Mr. Justice Doddridge, in the Earl of Oxford's case, advised the House - "If a man be created an earl to him and his heirs all men do know that though he had a fee simple yet he cannot alien or give away this inheritance because it is a personal dignity annexed to the posterity and fixed in the blood." In the Grey de Ruthin case, in the reign of Charles II, a resolution of this House put the proposition with absolute clearness: "That peer of this realm can drown or extinguish his honour but that it descends unto his descendants, neither by surrender, grant, fine, nor any other conveyance to the King." In 1678 the question presented itself for decision in the Purbeck case, and the resolution of the House was distinct and unqualified. "No fine now levied or at any time hereafter to be levied to the King can bar such title of honour or the right of any person claiming such title of honour or the right of any claiming such title under him that levied or shall levy such fine." The House proceeded as if they were declaring clear law, and not as if they were laying down any novel proposition. It is not denied that the law is now clear, but it is urged that it is hard and unreasonable to apply it to such an early date as 1312, that it was not then known or declared. On the subject or hardness and unreasonableness, it is not unworthy of note that this is not a case of disturbing or upsetting a long possession. On the contrary, it is a claim to call a title out of abeyance, after over four centuries. If the law is clear, how can we avoid applying it? The law did not begin in 1612, or 1640, or 1678. It was suggested that although no date could be arbitrarily fixed for its starting-point, may be it would be reasonable to say that it should not be applied until our Parliamentary system was established. But even if that canon was laid down, I do not think it would help Lord Mowbray, for it could not be urged that the condition suggested was not satisfied before 1302, the date of the surrender. What has been called "the model Parliament" met in 1295, and it is manifest that from that date, at all events, our Parliamentary system must be regarded as established. In my opinion, the claimant has failed to make out his case.
	Lord Davey said the real question was whether the claimant had made out the title of his ancestor to the earldom of Norfolk. There could not be any doubt as to the construction of the Charter of Edward II of 1312. The terms of the charter were plain and unambiguous. It was Bygod's earldom which it was purported had been surrendered into the King's hands, and which the King purported to grant to Thomas de Brotherton. It was not and did not operate as a new creation - indeed, it might be doubted whether, having regard to the original conception that an earldom was an office, the lawyers of that day would have admitted the possibility of there being two earls of the same county. A man could not alienate the title by surrender, grant, or otherwise, and the reason was that it was a personal thing which descended to his posterity; in other words he could not alter or affect the status of his descendants or other persons within the line of succession. But it had been said that the grant of 1312 ought to be treated as valid, because the ideas of the fourteenth century are not those which now prevail. That contention appeared to be based on a fallacy, that House was bound by its own declarations of the law, and exercising its judicial functions had no power to alter the law. Another argument was that even if the surrender was invalid, yet the grant to Thomas de Brotherton and the summoning of him to Parliament conferred the dignity of an earldom upon him. The historical right of a peer was to specially summoned by name to Parliament, but it had never been held that the summoning to Parliament conferred the title to any particular rank in the peerage. It would no doubt confer a peerage on Sir Thomas de Brotherton, but would not confer an earldom. For those reasons he concurred in the resolution that the Committee should report that the claimant had not established his case.
	The motion to report to the House that the petitioner had failed to make good his claim was then put and agreed to without dissent.
	Charles Howard, 10th Duke of Norfolk
	In 1785, there was published anonymously a book with the title The Heraldry of Nature; or, Instructions for the King of Arms, comprising the arms, supporters, crests and mottos, in Latin, and with a translation, of the E-g---h peers.
	In the preface, the author says he has 'rejected the common and patented bearings already painted on the carriages of our nobility, and instituted what he judges a wiser delineation of the honours they deserve'. In other words, the anonymous author produced a book which contains illustrations of the coats of arms of the then-current peerage, including the Lords Spiritual, based on his perception of the coats of arms that each peer deserved.
	Included in the book was Charles Howard, 10th Duke of Norfolk, who had a reputation for being a 'six bottle a day' man who would often drink himself insensible at any public banquet he attended.
	The book suggests that his arms should be three quart bottles, a broken flagon and a naked arm holding a corkscrew, with the motto of 'Quo me Bacche rapis' (Bacchus, where are you running with me?). The quote is from Horace (Book III, Ode XXV).
	Apparently the Duke's drinking binges were not all bad news for his servants, since, once he was unconscious, they could at least give him a wash - something that the Duke was reputed to never do himself. 'His repugnance to soap and water was equal to his love of wine.'
	Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1st and only Viscount Northcliffe, and his wife, Mary Elizabeth Milner (c 1868 - 30 July 1963)
	Lord Northcliffe married Mary Elizabeth Milner on 11 April 1888. After he died on 14 August 1922 his widow remarried, less than eight months later, Sir Robert Arundell Hudson (1864‑1927). This wedding does not appear to have been expected, since various reports on the wedding contain words such as "considerable surprise" and "bombshell".
	The following [rather turgid in my view] report appeared in the Adelaide Mail on 7 July 1923. Given its spelling of certain words and the reference to dollars rather than pounds, it was probably reprinted from an American newspaper.
	If one-tenth of one per cent of the gossip with which all England is buzzing is to be believed - and undoubtedly much more than that is worthy of being credited - it was a most unusual drama that was enacted a few months ago in the room where Lord Northcliffe, the millionaire newspaper and magazine publisher, lay dying.
	Other husbands have forgiven erring wives on their deathbeds. Still others have steadfastly refused to forgive and have gone to their graves busily plotting ways of depriving their wives of the other love that stood waiting on death's word.
	But probably never before did husband behave as Lord Northcliffe did. He treated his wife and the rival who is believed to have long since won her heart with a tender love and charity that seem almost beyond the power of any human heart.
	In his last hours of life he not only forgave whatever there may have been to forgive between his wife and the other man, but gave liberally of his wealth to safeguard their happiness and made them solemnly promise that they would be married as soon as possible after he was gone.
	This promise, made at Lord Northcliffe's bedside when the wings of the angel of death were already brushing his pale-thinned face, was redeemed the other day by the marriage of Lady Northcliffe to Sir Robert Hudson.
	That wedding set loose the tongues of gossips and brought to light many facts concerning the conditions in the Northcliffe family that were carefully hidden from view as long as the great publisher lived. And from this mass of facts and rumors the public can now get what is probably a fairly truthful idea of the amazing treatment Lord Northcliffe gave the love triangle in which he formed what is usually the unhappy and bitterly revengeful corner.
	Sir Robert, a widower since 1895, and Lady Northcliffe are said to have been in love since 1908. He is a wealthy man, the former chief agent of the Liberal Party, and was knighted for his services during the war in the British Red Cross. [He was first knighted in 1906, and promoted to a higher order of knighthood in 1918.]
	Lord Northcliffe is believed to have been fully aware of the new romance that had claimed his wife's heart since shortly after it began. But he behaved not at all as most husbands do under such circumstances.
	On the contrary, he repeatedly offered to permit himself to be divorced so Lady Northcliffe could marry Sir Robert, but his wife refused because of her social ambitions and fear of scandal.
	So Lord Northcliffe, with apparently not the slightest bitterness in his heart, did the next best thing. He effaced himself from her situation as far as he could and did everything to keep the other two corners of the triangle constantly together.
	It had long been a matter of comment that Sir Robert was practically a permanent member of the Northcliffe family and that wherever Lord and Lady Northcliffe went he was sure to go along, too.
	When the publisher was stricken with his last illness and felt sure his days were numbered, the future happiness of his wife and the other man seems to have been a matter of graver concern to him than his own serious condition or the disposition of his vast estate.
	His wife was already, through his generosity, a wealthy woman, but by outright gifts he increased her fortune by several million dollars. He was determined Sir Robert and she should never lack for comfort or luxuries if he could help it.
	While handing out these millions he drew a will providing that if his wife married again she should be deprived of a large share of the estate. But this is believed to have been only a ruse to conceal the true facts of the matter. With all his passion for publicity Lord Northcliffe seems to have shrunk from bringing his own wrecked love life into the world's view.
	When he had arranged his wife's financial future to his satisfaction he apparently became haunted by the fear that she and Sir Robert would, out of respect for his memory, postpone their marriage for an unduly long time, He did not want them to do this. He wished them to taste at once the happiness to which his death opened the way.
	One day, when his death seemed liable to occur at any minute, he astonished the nurse by insisting that he be propped up in bed and that his wife and Sir Robert be summoned to the room.
	When they had come Lord Northcliffe commanded them to take each other's hands. As they obeyed he pointed a tremulous hand at Sir Robert and said, in tones surprisingly clear for a dying man:- "Promise me, on your word of honor, that you'll marry her - at once - as soon as I am gone." Sir Robert is said to have given his promise, and then Lord Northcliffe demanded and received a similar promise from his sobbing wife. As he heard her pledge a little smile of satisfaction lit up his death-struck face and he sank back on the pillows exhausted. Not many hours later he was dead.
	The reader may make of this story whatever he or she will, but it should be pointed out that Lady Northcliffe did indeed lose a large portion of her late husband's estate when she remarried, and therefore the mention in the above report of a "ruse to conceal the true facts of the matter" seems to be incorrect.
	Patrick Charles Carnegy, 15th Earl of Northesk
	James Carnegie, 1st Lord Lour, was created Earl of Ethie and Lord Lour and Eglismauldie by patent, dated 1 November 1647. The remainder contained in the patent was to "heirs male of his body". Shortly before his death he procured a patent (dated 25 October 1666) changing the titles to those of Earl of Northesk and Lord Rosehill and Eglismauldie, which also altered the remainder to "heirs male and of entail in his estate". As a result, unlike a number of other Scottish peerages, these dignities could not descend through a female line.
	When the 14th Earl died in 2010, he was succeeded by a distant relation, his eighth cousin once removed, who was descended from the 2nd Earl. The following article appeared in the London Telegraph on 16 September 2013, under the heading "Daughters of aristocratic family loses title to distant male heir":-
	One of Britain's oldest aristocratic families has lost a Downton Abbey style battle to prevent a cherished title passing to a distant male heir.
	Lady Sarah Carnegie, 30, who was the oldest surviving child of the 14th Earl of Northesk, had sought to inherit the family title when her father died in 2010. But in line with the ancient laws of primogeniture governing Scottish titles, the Earldom has now passed to an eighth cousin, 72-year [old] Patrick Carnegy, who has no children himself.
	The fate of the ancient title, which was created in 1662 [sic], has been tinged with tragedy in recent years. The previous holder, David Carnegie, was the second son of the 13th Earl of Northesk, but became the heir apparent when his elder brother tragically drowned in infancy. He inherited the title in 1994 upon the death of his father Richard and having a son as well as three daughters, it looked like the succession was guaranteed for at least the next generation.
	But in 2001, his son, Alexander, committed suicide following a long battle with mental health problems. When David died from cancer aged just 55, the title passed to music scholar and journalist Patrick, who lives in Cambridgeshire with his wife, the soprano, Jill Gomez. But a pressure group, which is campaigning for gender equality within the laws of succession, has claimed this case highlights why the issue must be urgently addressed.
	The Countess of Clancarty, who is among those campaigning for a change in the way titles pass to male heirs said: "The Northesk case shows quite clearly how ridiculous, unfair and iniquitous the current system of inheritance is."
	Lady Sarah Carnegie, who as the eldest Northesk child ought to have inherited the title, now lives in the United States, where she works as a paramedic. But with the support of her mother and two sisters, she launched a legal bid to challenge the loss of the Earldom from the direct family.
	Her representatives contacted the Crown Office to inquire whether there was any way the title could pass down the female line. Because it was a Scottish title however the matter passed to the Scottish Lord Lyon, who after months of wrangling and careful examination of ancient documents eventually ruled in favour of the title passing to Patrick Carnegy, who was a direct descendant of the third son of the 2nd Earl of Northesk, who lived between 1643 and 1688.
	The 15th Earl insisted last night that he had never sought the title or indeed had expected to inherit. He told the Daily Telegraph: "Since 2001 and the tragic death of the 14th Earl's son and heir, I was recognised in Debrett etc as the heir presumptive. As the 14th Earl was some 14 years younger than myself I had never expected to inherit.
	"When the Earl died at the age of 55 in 2010 I was told by the Court of the Lord Lyon what I had to do to substantiate my claim to the title, one that has always passed through the male line. There was no prima facie case why the Earl's eldest daughter should inherit, nor, I believe, did their father ever think so."
	He added: "This ruling was graciously accepted on behalf of the late Earl's eldest daughter. My wife, the singer Jill Gomez, and myself remain on the best of terms with the sisters of the late Earl who live not far from our own house near Cambridge."
	He went on: "I fully understand the grievance of the many women who, under existing legislation, cannot inherit their family titles and property. But all peerages have been created by monarchs, and the destinations of the titles are set out, often very differently and in some cases permitting women to inherit, in the Letters Patent creating them. Would it not be virtually impossible to frame legislation to change those destinations without, in effect, abolishing the monarchy itself?"
	It is understood the family initially considered challenging the decision in the House of Lords, but decided against taking it further because of the pain caused by the various tragedies connected with the title. Lady Fisher, the sister of the 14th Earl said: "I think we took the collective view that there were so many sadnesses attached to it and it had no benefits." The title no longer has an estate attached to it and there is no financial legacy passed down, but the holder can apply to be one of the 92 hereditary peers allowed to take a seat in the House of Lords.
	The Northumberland Peerage Claim of 1672‑1689
	The following account of the claim is taken from an anonymously written book titled Celebrated Claimants Ancient and Modern published by Chatto and Windus, London, 1873.
	In 1670 Jocelyn Percy, the eleventh Earl of Northumberland, died without male issue. Up to his time, throughout the six hundred years, the noble family of Percy had never been without a male representative, and the successive earls had almost invariably been soldiers, and had added to the lustre of their descent by their own valiant deeds. But when the Earl Jocelyn died, in 1670, he left behind him a solitary daughter - whose life was in itself eventful enough, and who became the wife of Charles Somerset, the proud Duke of Somerset - but who could wear the title, although she inherited much of the wealth of the Percys. [This daughter married, as her second husband, Thomas Thynne, who was assassinated in Pall Mall in 1682 - for more information, see his entry under "Wiltshire" in the House of Commons pages.]
	Jocelyn Percy was, however, scarcely cold in his grave when a claimant appeared, who sought the family honours and the entailed lands which their possession implied. This was James Percy, a poor Dublin trunkmaker, who came over to England and at once assumed the title. His pretensions aroused the ire of the dowager-countess, the mother of Earl Jocelyn, who, on the 18th of February 1672, presented a petition to the House of Lords on behalf of herself and Lady Elizabeth Percy, her grand-daughter, setting forth that "one who called himself James Percy (by profession a trunkmaker in Dublin) assumes to himself the titles of Earl of Northumberland and Lord Percy, to the dishonour of that family". This petition was referred, in the usual course, to the Committee for Privileges. This was immediately followed by a petition from the claimant, which was read, considered, and dismissed. However, both parties appeared before the House of Lords on the 28th of November, James Percy claiming the honours, and the countess declaring him an imposter. Percy craved an extension of time; but, as he was unable to show any probability that he would ultimately succeed, his demand was refused, and his petition was dismissed - Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesea alone protesting against the decision.
	Percy, however, displaying the same valour and obstinacy in the courts which his ancestors had so often shown on the battle-fields, was not daunted, although he was discomfited. He appealed to the common-law tribunals, and brought actions for scandal and ejectment against various parties, and no fewer than five of these suits were tried between 1674 and 1681. The first adversary whom he challenged was James Clark, whom he sued for scandal, and in whose case he was content to accept a non-suit; alleging, however, that this untoward result was not so much brought about by the weakness of his cause as by the faithlessness of his attorney. In a printed document which he published with reference to the trial, he distinctly states that the Lord Chief-Justice, Sir Matthew Hale, was so much dissatisfied with the decision, that in the open court he plainly asserted "that the claimant had proved himself a true Percy, by father, mother, grandfather, and grandmother, and of the blood and family of the Percys of Northumberland; and that he did verily believe that the claimant was cousin and next heir-male to Jocelyn, late Earl of Northumberland, only he was afraid he had taken the descent too high". It is further reported that Sir Matthew, on entering his carriage, remarked to Lord Shaftesbury, who was standing by, "I verily believe he hath as much right to the earldom of Northumberland as I have to this coach and horses, which I have bought and paid for."
	His next action was against a gentleman named Wright, who had taken upon himself to pronounce him illegitimate, and in this instance he was more successful. The case was heard before Sir Richard Rainsford, Sir Matthew Hale's successor, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, with £300 damages. Flushed by this victory, he took proceedings against Edward Craister, the sheriff of Northumberland, against whom he filed a bill for the recovery of the sum of £20-a-year, granted by the patent of creation out of the revenues of the county. Before this, however, in 1680, he had again petitioned the House of Lords, and his petition was again rejected - Lord Annesley [i.e. Anglesey], as before, protesting against the rejection. The litigation with Craister in the Court of Exchequer being very protracted, the Duchess of Somerset (who was the daughter and heiress of Earl Jocelyn) brought the matter once more before the Lords in 1685, and her petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges. In reply to her petition Percy presented one of complaint, which was also sent to the Committee. No decision, however, seems to have been arrived at, and the reign of King James came to a close without further action. In the first year of the reign of William and Mary (1689), Percy returned to the charge with a fresh petition and a fresh demand for recognition and justice. These documents are still extant, and some of them are very entertaining. In one he candidly admits that he has been, up to the time when he writes, in error as to his pedigree, and, abandoning his old position, takes up fresh ground. In another, "The claimant desireth your lordships to consider the justice and equity of his cause, hoping your lordships will take such care therein that your own descendants may not be put to the like trouble for the future in maintaining their and your petitioner's undoubted right;" and lest the argumentum ad homines [argument against the man] should fail, he asks, "Whether or no three streams issuing from one fountain, why the third stream (though little, the first two great streams being spent) may not justly claim the right of the original fountain?" In addition, he appends a sort of solemn declaration, in which he represents himself as trusting in God, and waiting patiently upon the king's sacred Majesty for his royal writ of summons to call him to appear and take his place and seat according to his birthright and title, "for true men ought not to be blamed for standing up for justice, property, and right, which is the chief diadem in the Crown, and the laurel of the kingdom." That summons never was destined to be issued. When the Committee for Privileges gave in their report, it declared Percy's conduct to be insolent in persisting to designate himself Earl of Northumberland after the previous decisions of the House; and the Lords ordered that counsel should be heard at the bar of the House on the part of the Duke of Somerset against the said James Percy.
	This was accordingly done; and the Lords not only finally came to the decision that the pretensions of the said James Percy to the earldom of Northumberland are groundless, false, and scandalous", and ordered that his petition be dismissed, but added to their judgment this sentence, "That the said James Percy shall be brought before the four Courts in Westminster Hall, wearing a paper upon his breast on which these words shall be written: 'THE FALSE AND IMPUDENT PRETENDER TO THE EARLDOM OF NORTHUMBERLAND'. The judgment was at once carried into execution, and from that time forward the unfortunate trunkmaker disappears from the public view. He does not seem to have reverted to his old trade; or, at least, if he did so, he made it profitable, for we find his son, Sir Anthony Percy, figuring as Lord Mayor of Dublin in 1699. There can be no doubt that, although he was treated with undue harshness, his claims had no real foundation. At first he alleged that his grandfather, Henry Percy, was a son of Sir Richard Percy, a younger brother of Henry, ninth Earl of Northumberland - an allegation which would have made Sir Richard a grandfather at thirteen years of age. It was further proved that Sir Richard, so far from having any claim to such unusual honours, died without issue. In his second story he traced his descent to Sir Ingelram Percy, stating that his grandfather Henry was the eldest of the four children of Sir Ingelram, and that these children were sent from the north in hampers to Dame Vaux of Harrowden, in Northamptonshire. He advanced no proof, however, of the correctness of this story, while the other side showed conclusively that Sir Ingelram had never been married, and at his death had only left an illegitimate daughter. At any rate, whether James Percy was honest or dishonest, "the game was worth the candle" - the Percy honours and estates were worth trying for.
	The special remainders to the Barony of Warkworth and Earldom of Northumberland created in 1749
	From the London Gazette of 23 September 1749 (issue 8887, page 2):-
	The King has been pleased to grant the Dignities of a Baron and Earl of the Kingdom of Great Britain, unto his Grace Algernon Duke of Somerset, by the Name, Stile, and Title of Baron Warkworth, of Warkworth Castle in the County of Northumberland, and Earl of Northumberland, to hold the same to him, and his Heirs Male of his Body; and, in Default of such Issue, to Sir Hugh Smithson, of Stanwick in the County of York, Baronet (Son in Law to the said Duke of Somerset) and the Heirs Male of his Body by the Lady Elizabeth Smithson his present Wife (Daughter of the said Duke of Somerset) and in Default of such Issue, the Dignities of Baroness Warkworth, of Warkworth Castle, and Countess of Northumberland, to the said Lady Elizabeth Smithson; and the Dignities of Baron Warkworth, and Earl of Northumberland to her Heirs Male.
	The special remainder to the Earldom of Nugent created in 1776
	From the London Gazette of 29 June 1776 (issue 11679, page 1):-
	The King has been pleased to order Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the Kingdom of Ireland containing His Majesty's Grant of … the Dignity of an Earl of the said Kingdom of Ireland unto … Robert Lord Viscount Clare of the said Kingdom, by the Name, Stile, and Title of Earl Nugent, with Remainder to George Nugent Grenville, Esq., of Wotton under Baronwood in the County of Buckingham.
	The special remainder to the Barony of Nugent created in 1800
	From the London Gazette of 6 January 1801 (issue 15326, pages 39 and 40):-
	His Majesty has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of this Kingdom to the several Gentlemen hereafter mentioned, and the Heirs Male of their respective Bodies lawfully begotten [including] to the Most Noble Mary Elizabeth, Marchioness of Buckingham, Wife of the Most Noble George Grenville Nugent Temple, Marquis of Buckingham, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the Dignity of Baroness Nugent, of Carlan's Town, in the County of Westmeath; and to George Nugent Grenville (commonly called Lord George Nugent Grenville), Second son of the said Marchioness of Buckingham, and her Heirs Male of his Body, the Dignity of Baron Nugent, of Carlan's Town aforesaid.

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