Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Some sad news

No, not the titles, only their seats in the House of Lords. They had this dreadful habit of thinking for themselves and voting as they thought.

Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: Janet
To:
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Some sad news


I thought the British Parliament voted to do away with hereditary
titles a couple of years ago. I remember a photo of the current
Earl of Burford atop the Woolsack yelling "Treason! Treason!"
So how can some grocer in California be in line to inherit a
title?
Please straighten me out on this!

Thanks,
Janet


-- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> One of Richard's most prominent collateral descendants passed away
last
> month. Robert Capell, 10th Earl of Essex, left a son who is a 61
year-
> old bachelor and a male line only title.
> I read this in the Ipswich "Evening Star". The article included a
> feature on William Capell, a grocer from Sacramento in California
and
> cousin of the new Earl. He is 52 and has only a daughter but is
the
> heir to the Earldom, after whom would come a family in Zimbabwe
and
> South Africa.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the clarification. So is there no more House of
Lords after thre current batch pass away? Or do they have to stand
for election
By the way, in protest, the Earl of Burford now wishes to be
called Charles Beauclerk - no more "milord."

Janet

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> No, not the titles, only their seats in the House of Lords. They
had this dreadful habit of thinking for themselves and voting as
they thought.
>
> Stephen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Janet
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Some sad news
>
>
> I thought the British Parliament voted to do away with
hereditary
> titles a couple of years ago. I remember a photo of the current
> Earl of Burford atop the Woolsack yelling "Treason! Treason!"
> So how can some grocer in California be in line to inherit a
> title?
> Please straighten me out on this!
>
> Thanks,
> Janet
>
>
> -- In , "stephenmlark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > One of Richard's most prominent collateral descendants passed
away
> last
> > month. Robert Capell, 10th Earl of Essex, left a son who is a
61
> year-
> > old bachelor and a male line only title.
> > I read this in the Ipswich "Evening Star". The article
included a
> > feature on William Capell, a grocer from Sacramento in
California
> and
> > cousin of the new Earl. He is 52 and has only a daughter but
is
> the
> > heir to the Earldom, after whom would come a family in
Zimbabwe
> and
> > South Africa.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
>
>
>

There are several hundred Life Peers (appointed) and about ninety hereditaries left over. As for the future .... I mustn't comment too much on contemporary politics.
I can say that Bill the Californian grocer is now allowed to use his cousin's secondary (courtesy) title: Viscount Malden.
----- Original Message -----
From: Janet
To:
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: Some sad news


Thanks for the clarification. So is there no more House of
Lords after thre current batch pass away? Or do they have to stand
for election
By the way, in protest, the Earl of Burford now wishes to be
called Charles Beauclerk - no more "milord."

Janet

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> No, not the titles, only their seats in the House of Lords. They
had this dreadful habit of thinking for themselves and voting as
they thought.
>
> Stephen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Janet
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Some sad news
>
>
> I thought the British Parliament voted to do away with
hereditary
> titles a couple of years ago. I remember a photo of the current
> Earl of Burford atop the Woolsack yelling "Treason! Treason!"
> So how can some grocer in California be in line to inherit a
> title?
> Please straighten me out on this!
>
> Thanks,
> Janet
>
>
> -- In , "stephenmlark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > One of Richard's most prominent collateral descendants passed
away
> last
> > month. Robert Capell, 10th Earl of Essex, left a son who is a
61
> year-
> > old bachelor and a male line only title.
> > I read this in the Ipswich "Evening Star". The article
included a
> > feature on William Capell, a grocer from Sacramento in
California
> and
> > cousin of the new Earl. He is 52 and has only a daughter but
is
> the
> > heir to the Earldom, after whom would come a family in
Zimbabwe
> and
> > South Africa.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
>
>
>





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like the USA missed the chance in 1776 to abolish slavery in the US
Constitution - and look what happened as a result - so the British
Parliament missed the chance in the 20s to do away with the Lords
when the Prime Minister threatened to ennoble enough people to vote
away the Lords if the Lords at the time did not approve the
government legislation programme, which the upper house was in danger
of doing.
The Lords gave in and both the monarchy and Lords were saved.
Shame.
Paul

On Jul 22, 2005, at 21:24, Stephen Lark wrote:

> There are several hundred Life Peers (appointed) and about ninety
> hereditaries left over. As for the future .... I mustn't comment
> too much on contemporary politics.
> I can say that Bill the Californian grocer is now allowed to use
> his cousin's secondary (courtesy) title: Viscount Malden.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Janet
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Some sad news
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. So is there no more House of
> Lords after thre current batch pass away? Or do they have to stand
> for election
> By the way, in protest, the Earl of Burford now wishes to be
> called Charles Beauclerk - no more "milord."
>
> Janet
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
>
>> No, not the titles, only their seats in the House of Lords. They
>>
> had this dreadful habit of thinking for themselves and voting as
> they thought.
>
>>
>> Stephen
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Janet
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: Some sad news
>>
>>
>> I thought the British Parliament voted to do away with
>>
> hereditary
>
>> titles a couple of years ago. I remember a photo of the current
>> Earl of Burford atop the Woolsack yelling "Treason! Treason!"
>> So how can some grocer in California be in line to inherit a
>> title?
>> Please straighten me out on this!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Janet
>>
>>
>> -- In , "stephenmlark"
>> <smlark@t...> wrote:
>>
>>> One of Richard's most prominent collateral descendants passed
>>>
> away
>
>> last
>>
>>> month. Robert Capell, 10th Earl of Essex, left a son who is a
>>>
> 61
>
>> year-
>>
>>> old bachelor and a male line only title.
>>> I read this in the Ipswich "Evening Star". The article
>>>
> included a
>
>>> feature on William Capell, a grocer from Sacramento in
>>>
> California
>
>> and
>>
>>> cousin of the new Earl. He is 52 and has only a daughter but
>>>
> is
>
>> the
>>
>>> heir to the Earldom, after whom would come a family in
>>>
> Zimbabwe
>
>> and
>>
>>> South Africa.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> -----------
>
>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>
>> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>>
>> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>>
>> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
>>
> of Service.
>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> -----------
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of Service.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

you're never too old to launch your dreams

Re. Stephen Lark

So I take it that Bill the Californian is still English because I believe that if he was an American citizen he couldn't use a title, even a courtesy one. Isn't that true?

For instance the eldest daughter of the first Earl Attlee had the courtesy title of Lady Janet Shipton until she took out American citizenship in the 1970s, then she became Mrs Shipton. Of cause that may had just been her personal perference.

Helen
I can say that Bill the Californian grocer is now allowed to use his cousin's secondary (courtesy) title: Viscount Malden.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------








---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------



Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Re. Stephen Lark
>
> So I take it that Bill the Californian is still English because I
believe that if he was an American citizen he couldn't use a title,
even a courtesy one. Isn't that true?
>
> For instance the eldest daughter of the first Earl Attlee had the
courtesy title of Lady Janet Shipton until she took out American
citizenship in the 1970s, then she became Mrs Shipton. Of cause that
may had just been her personal perference.
>
> Helen
> I can say that Bill the Californian grocer is now allowed to use
his cousin's secondary (courtesy) title: Viscount Malden.
>
>

I know that Anthony Hopkins, for instance, was knighted then took US
citizenship and doesn't use the title any longer but I think that is
a personal choice.
To receive any British honour IN YOUR OWN RIGHT (except honorary
titles) you must be a British citizen. However, to inherit one, that
does not apply. The late Keith, Earl of Stradbroke, returned from
Australia to Suffolk. Michael Hastings ("Britain's Real Monarch")
remains Earl of Loudoun although he still lives in NSW.
I suppose William Capell's ancestors, when emigrating, did not expect
to be in line for this Earldom but so many primary male lines have
died out. As I have said, even he only has a daughter.

PS Megan, you know his surname now. Don't forget to curtsy and call
him My Lord if you go in for a pint of milk or whatever.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>

As far as inherited titles go I think that the USA is different from Australia and New Zealand as the two latter are part of the Commonwealth and have the same Queen as Britain. In reality it doesn't matter that much does it?

Unless a nineteenth century relative got it terribly wrong, and there is a link in the tree I would like clarified, my father's family supposed to be descended through the Capells from Richard's sister.

A few days ago some people were being abit cynical about people claiming descent from Edward 111. Frankly by now there could be many thousands descended from that monarch. One had to just to think of the many listed in De Ruvigny and he may had missed some. Many more too would have been born since publications of those volumes.

Helen

P.S. On the whole that side of my family were, let us say, not always of the best character! My father was a fine man however.

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:

I know that Anthony Hopkins, for instance, was knighted then took US
citizenship and doesn't use the title any longer but I think that is
a personal choice.
To receive any British honour IN YOUR OWN RIGHT (except honorary
titles) you must be a British citizen. However, to inherit one, that
does not apply. The late Keith, Earl of Stradbroke, returned from
Australia to Suffolk. Michael Hastings ("Britain's Real Monarch")
remains Earl of Loudoun although he still lives in NSW.
I suppose William Capell's ancestors, when emigrating, did not expect
to be in line for this Earldom but so many primary male lines have
died out. As I have said, even he only has a daughter.

PS Megan, you know his surname now. Don't forget to curtsy and call
him My Lord if you go in for a pint of milk or whatever.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>




---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------



Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

You never know, if you have any brothers or male cousins named Capell, they could be next. I am curious about your descent.
It is quite correct about Edward III, four of his sons have lines remaining today, the Staffords since Henry (1st Baron) married Ursula Pole being part of all four.
----- Original Message -----
From: Helen Rowe
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Some sad news


As far as inherited titles go I think that the USA is different from Australia and New Zealand as the two latter are part of the Commonwealth and have the same Queen as Britain. In reality it doesn't matter that much does it?

Unless a nineteenth century relative got it terribly wrong, and there is a link in the tree I would like clarified, my father's family supposed to be descended through the Capells from Richard's sister.

A few days ago some people were being abit cynical about people claiming descent from Edward 111. Frankly by now there could be many thousands descended from that monarch. One had to just to think of the many listed in De Ruvigny and he may had missed some. Many more too would have been born since publications of those volumes.

Helen

P.S. On the whole that side of my family were, let us say, not always of the best character! My father was a fine man however.

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:

I know that Anthony Hopkins, for instance, was knighted then took US
citizenship and doesn't use the title any longer but I think that is
a personal choice.
To receive any British honour IN YOUR OWN RIGHT (except honorary
titles) you must be a British citizen. However, to inherit one, that
does not apply. The late Keith, Earl of Stradbroke, returned from
Australia to Suffolk. Michael Hastings ("Britain's Real Monarch")
remains Earl of Loudoun although he still lives in NSW.
I suppose William Capell's ancestors, when emigrating, did not expect
to be in line for this Earldom but so many primary male lines have
died out. As I have said, even he only has a daughter.

PS Megan, you know his surname now. Don't forget to curtsy and call
him My Lord if you go in for a pint of milk or whatever.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>




---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------



Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com





SPONSORED LINKS Richard iii United kingdom Flag of united kingdom
United kingdom hotel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Re. Stephen Lark
>
> So I take it that Bill the Californian is still English because I
believe that if he was an American citizen he couldn't use a title,
even a courtesy one. Isn't that true?
>
> For instance the eldest daughter of the first Earl Attlee had the
courtesy title of Lady Janet Shipton until she took out American
citizenship in the 1970s, then she became Mrs Shipton. Of cause that
may had just been her personal perference.
>
> Helen
> I can say that Bill the Californian grocer is now allowed to use
his cousin's secondary (courtesy) title: Viscount Malden.
>


Americans can use British titles or any others they fancy. Sometimes
they even buy them. They also wear Scots tartans, even full kilt
outfits. They may look silly or pretentious, but there's no rule
against it.

aty

----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Some sad news


--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Re. Stephen Lark
>
> So I take it that Bill the Californian is still English because I
believe that if he was an American citizen he couldn't use a title,
even a courtesy one. Isn't that true?
>
> For instance the eldest daughter of the first Earl Attlee had the
courtesy title of Lady Janet Shipton until she took out American
citizenship in the 1970s, then she became Mrs Shipton. Of cause that
may had just been her personal perference.
>
> Helen
> I can say that Bill the Californian grocer is now allowed to use
his cousin's secondary (courtesy) title: Viscount Malden.
>


Americans can use British titles or any others they fancy. Sometimes
they even buy them. They also wear Scots tartans, even full kilt
outfits. They may look silly or pretentious, but there's no rule
against it.

aty

Yes but William Capell is absolutely the real thing.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume you are referring to the period around 1909 when the Lords
rejected Lloyd George's budget and the King agreed that if the
Liberals won a General Election on the issue he would accept their
request to create sufficient new peers to pass it. As a result the
Lords backed down and their power of veto was reduced to a delaying
power, designed to give the Commons time to re-think ill-thought out
legislation.

During the twentieth century a number of wise men tried to find a way
of improving the composition of the House of Lords and on every
occasion decided it was not worth the trouble to do so. Unfortunately
the current Prime Minister has embarked on a mission which has
involved destroying the existing structure of the House without any
real idea of how to replace it with something better, other than
ennobling sufficient of his cronies to give his party the largest
representation. This seems designed to permit a party with a majority
in the Commons based on around 30% electoral support to pass any
legislation it likes without interference. This is not, to my mind, an
advance on the former arrangements.

Whatever the faults of the American constitution as drawn up by the
founding fathers, the bicameral system of House of Representatives and
Senate seems to have worked pretty well - but the British government
seem determined not to allow the equivalent of the U.S.Senate in the
U.K. for fear that it would restrict them too much.

Richard



--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Like the USA missed the chance in 1776 to abolish slavery in the
> US Constitution - and look what happened as a result - so the
> British Parliament missed the chance in the 20s to do away with
> the Lords when the Prime Minister threatened to enoble enough
> people to vote away the Lords if the Lords at the time did not
> approve the government legislation programme, which the upper
> house was in danger of doing.

> On Jul 22, 2005, at 21:24, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > There are several hundred Life Peers (appointed) and about ninety
> > hereditaries left over. As for the future .... I mustn't comment
> > too much on contemporary politics.