`The following is in the style adopted by Burke's and other genealogical publications.

SENIOR-MILNE (formerly Milne)

Graham Senior-Milne, with Edrington House (2004) Graham Senior-Milne (2010)

GRAHAM NASSAU GORDON SENIOR-MILNE, ACA, 41ST BARON AND 34TH PRINCE PALATINE OF MORDINGTON AND A LORD ADMIRAL IN THE ADMIRALTY OF SCOTLAND, [The Much Hon. The Baron of Mordington, 39 Castle Street, Norham, Northumberland TD15 2LQ], formerly of Edrington House, Mordington, Berwickshire (1998-2004), The Dovecote, Lowick (1996-1998), Sanson Seal, Berwick-upon-Tweed (1985-1996), 113 Gowan Avenue, London SW6 (1982-1985), 40 Barons Court Road, London W14 (1982);

Sanson Seal, Berwick-upon-Tweed Edrington House

recognised as Baron of Mordington by interlocutor (decree) of the Court of the Lord Lyon dated 11 Nov 2004 and matriculated arms at the LO 30 October 2007; changed name by warrant of the Lord Lyon King of Arms dated 20 Dec 2004 as heir male of his mother, Pamela Mary Milne (née Senior), elder daughter and senior heraldic co-heiress of Oliver Nassau Senior, who d 30 Jun 1992, heraldic heir of his ancestral uncle, Ascanius William Senior (1728-89), High Sheriff of Hampshire, to whom arms were granted 26 Mar 1767 under the hands and seals of Garter King of Arms and Clarenceux King of Arms (see lineage of Senior below); b 29 Sept 1955 at the Nuffield Maternity Home, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford; educ Fonthill Lodge Pre-Prep. and Prep. Schools, nr. East Grinstead, W. Sussex 1960-1969, Tonbridge 1969-71, Epsom College 1971-74; 2nd Lt. Royal Marines 1976-77; Asst. Film Dir. Cygnet Guild, London 1978; City of London Polytechnic (Foundation in Accountancy - passed with Credit) 1979-80; Served articles (ACA 1985) with Ernst & Whinney, Chartered Accountants, Southampton and London 1980-86; IT Auditor, Arthur Young, Chartered Accountants, Edinburgh 1987-88; IT Auditor, Scottish Homes, Edinburgh 1989-92; Fin. Cntrllr. & IT Mngr, Scottish Borders Enterprise, Galashiels 1992-96; Prtnr, Cogent Communications, Berwick-upon-Tweed 1996-98; IT Audit Mngr, Lloyds TSB, London and Edinburgh 1998-2004; Prtnr, ABC Publications, Berwick-upon-Tweed 2004; Chrmn, Berwick Parish Church Trust 1993; Freeman Worshipful Company of Tallow Chandlers from 1994; Member of the Council of the Scottish Genealogy Society 2002-09; m 25 Jun 1983 (div 2011) Annabel Catherine Margaret Horsfield and has issue,

Annabel Milne James Milne

1a JAMES NASSAU GORDON, Young Mordington; b 2 Jul 1985; educ Longridge Towers School, Berwick-upon-Tweed 1990-2001, Glenalmond College 2001-3, Harper Adams Univ. College, Newport, Shropshire 2004-5, Leeds University 2005-8; RMA Sandhurst, Brecon, Belize and Bovington 2008-10, commissioned 5 Rifles, Paderborn, Germany 2010
2a Hugh Nicholas; b 27 Mar 1991; educ Longridge Towers School, Berwick-upon-Tweed; Sexey's School, Bruton 2007-09; University of the West of England, Bristol from 2010
1a Georgina Thea Gordon, The Maid of Mordington; b 23 Oct 1992; educ Longridge Towers School, Berwick-upon-Tweed; Epsom College; University of York St. John's, York from 2011


Lineage of Milne

The Milne/Mylne/Miln family is widespread in the North-East of Scotland, having been settled in Aberdeenshire and its neighbouring counties since the Middle Ages. In 2006 Milne was the 386th name in order of frequency in the United Kingdom. According to Black's 'Surnames of Scotland' the name was first recorded as 'de Molendino' in a charter of 1382 (but see the reference to the Ragman Roll of 1296 below) and is derived from the Old English 'myln', thus referring to a person living at or near a mill. It is possible, however, that 'de Molendino' was a Latinized form of 'de Molines' or 'de Molyneux' since the arms borne by Milne/Mylne in Scotland (or, a cross moline azure) are a reversal of those of Molyneux, Earls of Sefton (azure, a cross moline or). The de Molyneuxs were a Norman family from Moulineaux near Rouen who settled after the Conquest at Sefton in Lancashire, being granted the lands of Sefton by Roger of Poitou, the Domesday tenant, in about 1100. The family held these lands for almost 900 years, until the death of the 7th Earl in 1972. A younger son of this family, Vivian de Molyneux, a knight or squire, accompanied Avice de Lancaster (d 1190), daughter of William de Lancaster, Baron of Kendal (d 1170), into Scotland on the occasion of her marriage to Richard de Morville (d 1189) in 1167, settling at Oxton, Lauderdale (Berwickshire) and then Saltoun, East Lothian ('The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History', Professor G W S Barrow, Clarendon Press, 1980); he probably occupied the castle or tower house at Saltoun then held by the de Morville family which is now Saltoun Hall. An Elizabeth de Molyn of Berwickshire, evidently a landowner, signed the Ragman Roll in 1296, so 'Molyn' may represent a transitional form of the name from Molyneux, through Molyn, to Milne. Vivian de Molyneux's descendants, of whom there appears otherwise to be no trace, may have moved North with the Gordons of Gordon, Berwickshire (about 10 miles from Oxton), of which clan the Milne family are a sept, following the Gordon acquisition of the Lordship of Strathbogie, Aberdeenshire, in the early 1300s (see HUNTLY M.).

Several families of the name (with a probable though not established relationship) have achieved prominence, including Mylne of Balfarge (Glenrothes, Fife), Milne of Mureton and Milne of Balwyllo. The most notable branch were the Mylnes of Balfarge who were Master Masons to the Kings of Scots for seven generations, beginning with John Mylne (d 1513), Master Mason to James III, whose son, Alexander Mylne (d 1548), was first Lord President of the Court of Session 1532-1543, and continuing down to Robert Mylne (1663-1710), Master Mason to Charles II. The line continued down to Robert's great-grandson, another Robert (1733-1811), also an architect, a founder member of the Society of Civil Engineers, who is buried in St. Paul's Cathedral, and his son, William (1781-1863), also an architect - giving an unbroken line of architects for 400 years. John Mylne (d 1621), of this family, Master Mason to James VI, Master of the Lodge at Scone, admitted that king, 'at His Majesty's own desire', as 'frieman, mason and fellow craft' (M. Baigent and R. Leigh, 'The Temple and The Lodge - Inside Freemasonry', p.167). 'The Castellated and Domestic Architecture of Scotland' (Vol. V, p. 564) says of the Mylnes of Balfarge that they were 'an illustrious family who, during eleven generations, may be almost said to have established architecture as a profession in Scotland, and raised it to and maintained it in a position of dignity and importance to which it had hitherto been a stranger.' Amongst individuals of the name who have achieved distinction are Field Marshal Sir George Milne (1866-1948), 1st Lord Milne of Salonika and Rubislaw, Co. Aberdeen (see MILNE B.) and Admiral Sir Archibald Berkeley Milne, 2nd and last Bt. (1855-1938), famous for saying 'They don't pay me to think, they pay me to be an Admiral', son of Admiral of the Fleet Sir Alexander Milne, 1st Bt. (1806-1896), son of Admiral Sir David Milne of Milne Graden, Coldstream, Berwickshire (1763-1845). Admiral Sir David Milne was ancestor of the family of Milne-Home of Wedderburn Castle, Duns, Berwickshire, and Paxton House, Paxton, Berwickshire, (Sir David's son, another David, married Jean Home, heiress of Wedderburn and Paxton, and took the name Milne-Home), and of the family of Home-Robertson of Wedderburn Castle and Paxton House (Helen Milne-Home (1905-87), heiress of Wedderburn and Paxton, married John Robertson, who took the name Home-Robertson) (see BLG various ed.). Professor John 'Earthquake' Milne (1850-1913) is acknowledged as the father of seismology; he invented the horizontal pendulum seismograph and set up the world’s first world centre for seismology at Shide, Newport, Isle of Wight. Col. William Smith Gill, CB, VD (1865-1951), father of Ruth Sylvia Roche, Lady Fermoy (1908-1993), grandmother of Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997), was the great-great-grandson of Alexander Milne of Fyvie, Aberdeenshire (see FERMOY B.).


ROBERT MILNE, tacksman (tenant) of Charles Henry Mordaunt (1758-1814), 5th Earl of Peterborough, at West Boat of Durris, parish of Banchory Ternan, Kincardinshire; an elder of the Kirk for over 30 years; d 30 Apr 1823, aged 90, leaving with other issue a second son,

ROBERT MILNE, tacksman at West Boat of Durris; b 1770; m 4 Dec 1802 Clementina Paul of Mill of Invercanny (d 9 Nov 1846) and d 8 Jul 1838 leaving with other issue by her a third son,

JAMES MILNE, farmer, of South Lasts, Peterculter, Aberdeenshire and later of Kebbaty, Midmar, Aberdeenshire; b 6 Jan 1809; m Elspet Gordon (d 3 Apr 1879) and d 11 Feb 1875 leaving with other issue by her a fourth son,

Dr. Robert Milne (1849-1922) - Colleague of Dr. Barnardo. Members of his family were in continuous service with Dr. Barnardo's Homes from 1880 to 1972, a period of 92 years, providing over 120 combined years of service. 'The monument to the Milne family [is] to be found in the hearts and lives of countless Barnardo children' ('Night and Day', Autumn 1951). See also Rose, June, 'For the Sake of the Children: Inside Dr Barnardo's: 120 Years of Caring for Children', Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1987.

ROBERT MILNE, MD, physician, called the 'Beloved Physician', sometime of Kebbaty House, Midmar, Aberdeenshire, latterly of 75 Windsor Road, Forest Gate, London; b 26 Jul 1849; educ Aberdeen Grammar School and Marischal College, Aberdeen (graduated MB and CM 1874); in practice at Midmar 1876-1880; joined Dr. Barnardo at his special request in 1880 following an outbreak of scarlet fever at the Girls' Village Home, Barkingside and was Chief Medical Officer of Dr. Barnardo's Homes from 1880 to 1919, during which period he is estimated to have treated some 50,000 children; author of 'Infectious Diseases (Scarlet Fever, Measles, Diphtheria)', 'The Prevention of Infectious Diseases', 'Plea for the Home Treatment and Prevention of Scarlet Fever', 'The Prevention of Infectious Diseases (Scarlet Fever and Measles)', 'The Treatment and Prevention of Measles', 'Triumph of the Home Treatment and Prevention of Scarlet Fever', 'Measles: Its Treatment and Prevention' and 'The Elimination of Cross Infections'; m 6 Apr 1877 Mary Stuart Thomson (d 20 Jan 1925) and d 8 Nov 1922 having had issue,

1a James Alexander, MD, MRCS, LRCP, DPH, physician, latterly of 51 Hollybush Hill, Snaresbrook; b 24 Jan 1878; Medical Officer of Dr. Barnardo's Homes 1904-1944, firstly at Her Majesty's Hospital for Sick Children, Stepney and later at the John Capel Hanbury Hospital, Boys' Garden City; d unmarried 6 Jan 1950
2a Robert, MD, FRCS, LRCP, physician, latterly of 75 Portland Place, London W1; b 11 Mar 1881; educ City of London School; Major RAMC 1914-18; Assistant Surgeon then Surgeon London Hospital 1910-42; Surgeon Rear-Admiral from 1942, Honorary Consultant Surgeon to Dr. Barnardo's Homes; Examiner for the Royal College of Surgeons, the Society of Apothecaries and Cambridge University; m Alice and d 29 Sep 1949 having had issue,

1b Iain, MD, MRCP, physician; b 1916; Member of the Council of Dr. Barnardo's Homes from 1959, Deputy Chairman from 1962 and Acting Chairman of the Council when he d 1969; m Jean Mayou and had issue Valerie (who m and has issue Pippa), Elizabeth (who m and has issue James, David and Penny) and Alastair (deceased)
2b Kenneth, MD, physician, m Shelagh Elizabeth Marmion and had issue Andrew Gordon (b 4 Mar 1955, m Sallie Jane Dermody and has issue Deborah Jane and Sarah Elizabeth), David Robert Marmion (physician, b 27 Feb 1957, m Lynda Thomas and has issue James, Tom and Alice) and Michael Roger (physician, b 27 Feb 1959, m Clare Thackray and has issue David and Helen).
1b Monica; educ Somerville College, Oxford; sometime of the Foreign Office and later a magistrate; m John Henshaw Britton, CBE, of G B Britton & Sons Ltd, son of
George Bryant Britton, Liberal MP for Bristol East (1918-1922), founder of the firm of G B Britton & Sons Ltd of Bristol, boot and shoe manufacturers; no issue

3a Thomas Gordon; b 15 Apr 1882, d 7 Nov 1882
4a William Thomson; b 26 Aug 1887, d 24 Jul 1904
5a GEORGE GORDON, of whom we treat
1a Mary Thomson; b 14 Oct 1879, d 30 Sep 1880
2a Margaret Thomson; b 30 Aug 1883, teacher, Principal of the Domestic Science Ladies Training College, Leeds; d unmarried 1924
3a Elsie Gordon; b 24 Oct 1885, m Stanley Bishop and had issue
4a Clementina Isabella Gordon, ARCA, teacher; b 12 Oct 1889; Art Mistress at Wakefield High School; unmarried; she designed the logo of the 1938 Empire Exhibition

Logo of the 1938 Empire Exhibition

5a Mary Elizabeth Gordon, OBE (1945), nurse; b 3 Dec 1892; Sister Tutor, General Hospital, Johannesburg 1926-1928; Matron at St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London 1928-1933 and 1940-1949; Matron-in-Chief of the London County Council; Matron of the Leeds General Infirmary; Member Central Health Services Council (Chairman of the Nursing Services Sub-Committee); Member of the Management Committee of the Paddington Group of Hospitals; Member of the Council of Dr. Barnardo's Homes 1951-1969 and Vice-President from 1969; d unmarried 1972
6a Dorothea Ella Gordon, ARCA; b 31 Jul 1895; Art Mistress at Hammersmith Art School; m Warren Wilson and had issue

Australian 'Cobbers Memorial' at Fromelles, commemorating the attack at Fromelles on 19 Jul 1916, "the worst 24 hours in Australia's entire history" (the statue is of a soldier of the 57th Battalion (Sergeant Simon Fraser) carrying a wounded soldier of the 60th Battalion). See also here, here, here, here and here.

'Few more gallant episodes than this dashing, hopeless assault exist in the annals of any army in the world.' - Capt. A D Ellis MC, 'The Story of the Fifth Australian Division, being an authoritative account of the division's doings in Egypt, France and Belgium', Nabu Public Domain Reprints (originally Hodder & Stoughton, London), p. 101, describing the assault by two companies of the 58th Battalion on 19 July 1916 at Fromelles.

'Stammering scores of German machine-guns spluttered violently, drowning the noise of the cannonade. The air was thick with bullets, swishing in a flat criss-crossed lattice of death ... Hundreds were mown down in the flicker of an eyelid, like great rows of teeth knocked from a comb ... Men were cut in two by streams of bullets [that] swept like whirling knives ... It was the charge of the Light Brigade once more, but more terrible, more hopeless.' - W H Downing (a survivor of the battle)

'What these men did nothing can alter now. The good and the bad, the greatness and smallness of their story will stand. Whatever of glory it contains nothing now can lessen. It rises, as it will always rise, above the mists of ages, a monument to great-hearted men; and, for their nation, a possession for ever.' - C E W Bean (Official historian writing about the AIF generally)

'the lowest point of military incompetence in the Great War' - Ekins, Ashley, “The battle of Fromelles”, Wartime 44 (2008) 18-23

'perhaps the greatest loss by a single division in 24 hours during the entire war' - Ekins, Ashley, “The battle of Fromelles”, Wartime 44 (2008) 18-23

2nd Lt. (later Lt.) George Gordon Milne (alias Leonard Henry Dardier), 58th Battalion, Australian Imperial Force, sitting bottom-left. A photograph of officers representing British Imperial Forces at the Bastille Day Parade in Paris in July 1916. The two Australian officers left Paris on 17 July 1916 and took part in the attack at Fromelles two days later. Both officers were wounded and 2nd Lt. (later Capt.) Norman Lovett, 54th Battalion (killed in action 6 Apr 1918), standing top right, was awarded the MC. Over 5,500 Australians were killed, wounded or captured in a matter of hours.

GEORGE GORDON MILNE, MRCS (1924), LRCP (1924), physician, of Lerwick, Shetland (1924-28), 214 Algernon Road, Lewisham (about 1932-34), 54 Pickhurst Lane, Hayes, Kent (about 1934-35), 38 Hayter Rd, Brixton (1936) and latterly of 86 Elizabeth Street, Hobart, Tasmania; b 31 Jan 1894; educ at The Coopers' Company School, Upminster and Univ. of London, Faculty of Medicine (Part I (Distinction) 1913, Part II (Testament of Merit) 1922); volunteer medic in Bulgaria with the British Red Cross during the Balkan War 1912-13 (British Red Cross Society Balkan War Medal and Bulgarian 'For Merit' Medal); under the assumed name of 'Leonard Henry Dardier' he joined the Australian Imperial Force at Melbourne as a volunteer in May 1915; was promoted 2nd Lt, Lt. then acting company commander, D Company, 58th Battalion, Australian Imperial Force (AIF) 1916-1917; was one of two officers representing the AIF at the Bastille Day Parade, Paris, 1916; was wounded during the Attack at Fromelles on 19 July 1916 and at Ginchy, Somme on 19 January 1917 (bullet throught the right shoulder); was assigned as Adjutant 60th Battalion, Australian Imperial Force Jul to Sept 1916, all the officers of that battalion except one having been killed, wounded or captured at Fromelles; Instructor at Brigade School for Officers and NCOs, Egypt (1916) and Bapaume, France (1917); Bayonet Fighting Instructor at 5th Australian Division School, Sailly, France (1917), seconded to 15th Training Battalion, Hurdcott, Wiltshire, then Overseas Training Brigade, Longbridge Deverill, Wiltshire (1917-18); was court-martialled, cashiered and deprived of pay, war gratuity and right to war medals in March 1918 for being drunk while on a day's leave in Salisbury on 9 Feb 1918* and subsequently absent without leave**, in spite of a character reference from Lt. Col C R Davies, former commanding officer of 58th Battalion, that he 'bore an excellent character' and was 'a most promising officer', and a recommendation from Lt. Gen. Sir Henry Schlater, Commander-in-Chief, Southern Command, that his sentence should be commuted to loss of seniority and severe reprimand (according to the records he walked into a police station, not being aware that it was a police station, to complain about a bright light outside the building, presumably because there was supposed to be a blackout due to Zeppelin raids); served in the merchant marine 1919-21 between London and Australia (trimmer (coal shoveller) and later fireman (stoker)) and 1929-31 between London and Australia, India, China and Japan (surgeon), m 13 Apr 1925 (divorce 1936) Margaret Nightingale Campbell (b 19 Mar 1900, d 18 Dec 1983), sometime of the War Department, daughter of Hugh Ross Campbell (b 3 May 1868), Police Inspector, and Margaret Gilchrist Nightingale of Arch House, Ecclefechan, Dumfries & Galloway (birthplace of Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) and now owned by the National Trust for Scotland) (b 22 May 1871, d 26 Dec 1956), and sister of Lt. Col. Sir Alexander ('Uncle Sandy') Campbell, MC (1916, East Africa), (1890-1963), who served on the staff of Earl Mountbatten of Burma and later with the Burma Civil Service, and of Robert ('Uncle Bob') Nightingale Campbell, OBE (1891-1963), Controller of Scotland, Ministry of Labour, and had issue,

*This was the maximum sentence, imposed for a first time offence committed while on leave in England. Note also that the doctor who was called to give evidence as a prosecution witness at the court martial testified that L H Dardier 'had been drinking', not that he was drunk, which contradicted the evidence of the police. The doctor also said, when cross-examined, that Dardier's 'speech was clear', which also contradicted the evidence of the police. 'Young officers, at this period, were expected, as someone has noted in his war-memoires, to be roistering blades over wine and women.' - Robert Graves, 'Goodbye to All That'.

**The evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses only established that L H Dardier was not in his cubicle or mess at specific times, not that he was not in the camp at those times. As L H Dardier stated 'the evidence of neither witness proves that I was out of the camp'. When cross-examined a prosecution witness acknowledged that an officer (and Dardier had only been in that camp a short time) might not know the limits of a specific camp (there were several camps together).

George Gordon Milne (otherwise Leonard Henry Dardier), Lt. and commander of D Company, 58th Battalion, Australian Imperial Force - Forfeited war medals.

British Red Cross Balkan War Medal (Bulgarian clasp) and Bulgarian 'For Merit' Medal (less than 300 of the former were awarded)

Was George Gordon Milne the Last English Crusader Knight?

Illustration from Punch, 21 October 1914. Nurses of the St. John Ambulance Association tend a wounded soldier. The ghost of a Knight of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem attends.

There is no doubt that the Balkan War of 1912-13, in which George Gordon Milne served with the British Red Cross as a dresser (later being raised to the rank of Surgeon-Lieutenant in the Bulgarian Army), was the Last Crusade (holy war against Islam) and was regarded as such by the European belligerents, whose aim was to drive the Turks from European soil (WW1 was not a religious war of course and so was not a crusade). The manifesto of Tsar Ferdinand of Bulgaria said 'This is not a war like any other war, but the war of the Cross against the Crescent. Our enterprise is righteous, great and sacred.' (Despot, Igor; 'The Balkan War in the Eyes of the Warring Parties', iUniverse, 2012, p. 62). As far as I am aware the only British/English participants in that war were the British Red Cross volunteers, who, in looking after the sick and wounded, were performing the same function in the Balkan War as the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in the Crusades in the Holy Land many centuries before (at that time the St. John Ambulance Association was part of the British Red Cross). Coincidentally, these people also served under the red cross on a white background; the cross of the Knights Templar. Only 300 British Red Cross Balkan War Medals were awarded and many of these were to people who cared for the Turkish wounded (the Red Cross looked after the wounded of both sides), so perhaps half (150) were awarded to people who served with the Christian armies. This small band were the last British/English crusaders (in the true knightly sense) in history and the medals awarded to them are the only medals awarded to British/English crusaders ever. These medals were, of course, awarded for saving life, rather than taking it, and are infinitely rarer than the Victoria Cross. Bear in mind also that medical staff continually exposed themselves on the battlefield to the greatest danger, often unarmed.

The 58th Battalion at the attack at Fromelles

'By then night was closing in, and in the failing twilight there had already gone forward, punctually to the minute, one of the bravest and most hopeless assaults ever undertaken by the Australian Imperial Force. The two companies of the 58th were commanded by Major Hutchinson, a young graduate of Duntroon, son of a Tasmanian clergyman, and a boy of the finest type that his country produces. Before the actual order to advance, the men - as was often the case with Australians, especially when first in action - could be felt straining like greyhounds on the leash, and were not easily restrained from anticipating the word of command. On its being given, they went forward with splendid dash opposite the Sugar-loaf, carrying with them a number of survivors of the 59th, until, when they were two-thirds of the way across No-Man's Land, there was opened from the salient a fire of machine-guns so severe that the line was shattered and the men dazed. The survivors obtained slight cover in a ditch. As they lay there, with the terrifying din of the machine-gun bullets cracking overhead, Hutchinson, apparently in an endeavour to lift the wave farther, went on himself, alone, and fell riddled by bullets close to the German wire.* The two companies of the 58th which made the attack were practically annihilated.' - Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918, 12th Ed. (1941), Vol 3, p. 394

*2nd Lt. L H Dardier signed the recommendation for, and made a statement supporting, the award of a posthumous VC to Major Hutchinson (which was not granted), as a witness, so must have been near him when he was killed, and was certainly one of his platoon commanders (L H Dardier's military record states that he was 'in Fleurbaix-Fromelles attack on 19.7.16', which can only be the attack at 9pm on 19 Jul 1916). Major Hutchinson was killed in front of the German wire near the Sugar Loaf, which can only mean that he and his men had continued to attack, right in front of the German machine guns, after the two attacking companies of the 58th Battalion had been practically annihilated. In my view, anyone who took part in this hopeless assault in the face of almost certain death deserves a VC. Evidence from Hutchinson's batman, Private Lynch, states 'We got up and went forward. As we rose he was hit and fell.' (Letter of Australian Red Cross dated 15/8/1916 in Hutchinson's AIF record).

Not only was Major Hutchinson not awarded the VC, he wasn't even mentioned in despatches, which is quite extraordinary. One author has speculated that this may well have been because the citation for the VC mentioned that the attack had been made in support of a British attack 'which unfortunately was not made', something that higher command wanted to conceal (not least because many Australians blamed the British for not supporting them at Gallipoli and the same thing appears to have happened the very first time Australian troops were engaged on the Western Front, that is at Fromelles, with similarly tragic results). Not one of the officers who took part in the suicidal attack by the 58th Battalion received any medal or even a mention in despatches. As Robin Corfield wrote in his definitive account of the attack, 'Don't forget me, Cobber - The Battle of Fromelles', 'this [list of medals awarded to the 58th Battalion] is a curiously bare list considering what the 58th did and was expected to do'. Of the 59th Battalion he wrote 'Perhaps like the 58th and 60th this sparse list might have more to do with the lack of survivors than lack of bravery. Of the 60th Battalion, which had a 90% casualty rate (killed, wounded or captured) in the space of a few minutes, he wrote 'For the most damaged battalion there was little comfort in the list of awards.' This lack of awards to the 58th, 59th and 60th Battalions contrasts with awards made to Divisional Headquarters staff, which included an MC to one Captain who 'controlled all the necessary provision and distribution of ammunition and stores for the fight 19/20 July and did it admirably' (that is a bravery award for an administrative job at headquarters) and a Mentioned in Despatches to one Lt. Col for traffic control.

A summary of the attack at Fromelles:

1. The attack at Fromelles on 19/7/1916 was intended to prevent the Germans reinforcing their positions on the Somme, where the British Army had launched a major offensive on 1/7/1916 (The Battle of the Somme). It was acknowledged to be unnecessary by senior British military commanders even before it took place. All that was actually required to give the Germans the impression of a forthcoming attack, and so to achieve the objective, was a sufficiently large artillery barrage and troop movements indicating a build-up to an attack, and this is what was initially proposed. The attack only went ahead at the insistence of the British corps commander, Lieutenant General Richard Haking, who was convinced that it would succeed (even though a previous attack in this area - the Battle of Aubers Ridge - had been a disaster), but, even then, it was an attack with no physical objective (i.e. to take and hold ground).
2. The Germans knew about the attack in advance and the British knew that they knew.
3. Previous attacks at that location in similar circumstances has resulted in massive and useless slaughter to no purpose whatsoever (though not on the scale of the Australian casualties on 19/20 Jul 1916) and not long before the Guards Division had refused to attack at that location without a direct written instruction from the Commander in Chief acknowledging objections and absolving the divisional commander (presumably Major General Sir Geoffrey Percy Thynne Feilding, Coldstream Guards) of any responsibility for the consequences. No attack was made. (Robin Corfield, 'Don't forget me, Cobber - The Battle of Fromelles' , p. 382, quoting Brigadier General Elliott, Australian 15th Brigade).
4. The Australian divisional and brigade commanders had no previous experience of this type of trench warfare and, in some cases, even of active service at their ranks, but they knew that the attack was suicidal because Major H C L Howard of the General Staff said so in no uncertain terms when he visited the front line five days before the attack; he said it would be a 'holocaust'.
5. The Australian troops had no previous experience of trench warfare (excluding some Gallipoli veterans) and had been in the trenches for less than a week.
6. The artillery was not properly trained and had very little experience, which resulted in (1) numerous casualties amongst the Australian troops from their own artillery while they were still in their own trenches before the attack and (2) the artillery barrage having almost no effect on the German defences and, in particular, no effect whatsoever on the key German strongpoint, the Sugarloaf machine gun emplacement. This allowed the German machine gunners to mow down hundreds of troops within the space of a few minutes with enfilade fire (i.e. from the side).
7. The failure of the first wave of the attack in the area of the Sugarloaf was apparent but a second wave attack, by elements of the British 61st Division and the Australian 5th Division, was ordered nonetheless.
8. The second wave attack was then cancelled by the British corps commander (Haking) but the order was not passed on to the Australian 58th Battalion in time. This meant that two companies of the 58th Battalion attacked without any British flanking support and were simply mown down by the German machine guns in the Sugarloaf.
9. Following the attack the Australian divisional commander (McCay) refused to agree to a truce to allow the wounded to be recovered from No-Man's Land. This meant (1) that many of the wounded were left to die, (2) that some of the wounded who tried to make their own way back to the Australian front line were shot by the Germans and (3) that many of those who tried to rescue the wounded were killed by the Germans while trying to do so. In their area of the front-line the British did agree a truce.
10. The 60th Battalion suffered 90% losses (killed, wounded or captured) and the two companies of the 58th Battalion were 'practically annihilated' in an unnecessary and futile attack which had been cancelled (see above).
11. The three Australian battalions (58th, 59th and 60th) involved in the suicidal attacks on the right flank nearest the German machine gun emplacements in the Sugarloaf received almost no bravery awards for those attacks (the attack by the 58th Battalion was later described in the official Australian history of the war as 'one of the bravest and most hopeless assaults ever undertaken by the Australian Imperial Force'). This contrasts with awards to divisional staff, including a Lt. Col. who was Mentioned in Despatches for traffic control. In November 2011, Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith, VC, MG, of the Australian SAS, said of the soldiers involved in the attack at Fromelles that none of them 'received any awards because there wasn't anyone alive to nominate them'.
12. The extent of the disaster was concealed from the public and the official communiqué
described the attack as 'some important raids on a front of two miles in which Australian troops took part'. There was no mention of casualties.
13. Lieutenant General Richard Haking, commander of the British XI Corps said 'I think the attack, although it failed, has done both divisions a great deal of good.' One might ask how over 7,000 soldiers killed, wounded or captured in the space of a few hours for no gain whatsoever can be 'good'. Did it 'teach them a lesson' perhaps?
14. The day after the attack (20 Jul 1916) Major General McCay, commander of the 5th Australian Division, said, when he learned of the scale of the casualties, 'They'll get used to it' (meaning his own troops).
15. In 1998 Fred Kelly, a veteran of the 53rd Battalion, said 'Whoever planned the battle of Fromelles was stupid. It was the greatest piece of stupidity since the Charge of the Light Brigade. We were in full view, the Germans chopped the 53rd to pieces... Haking was a 'rat bag', it was the worst piece of strategy. It was murder, we had no chance.'
16. None of the senior British or Australian commanders were held to account for their actions; in fact, most were decorated and promoted. Both the British and Australian official histories have been slanted to clear senior commanders of blame (this is explained in Robin Corfield's, 'Don't forget me, Cobber - The Battle of Fromelles' ).
17. The attack failed to take any ground and failed to prevent the Germans from reinforcing their positions on the Somme.
18. The attack is not mentioned on the Australian War Memorial.
19. The attack is not a battle honour for any of the regiments/battalions involved.
20. The attack is not officially acknowledged as a battle; it is officially called 'The Attack at Fromelles' even though it involved two divisions attacking on a 2 mile front with over 7,000 British and Australian killed, wounded or captured (more than 3 times those of the 'Battle of Mons' of August 1914, for instance, which is a battle honour).
21. Unfortunately, the attack failed to kill one Adolf Hitler, then serving in the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment opposite the Australian 15th Brigade.

'Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord, with me abide.
When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
Help of the helpless, O abide with me.'


Denys Gordon Milne (1926-2000) Pilot Officer, RAF Regiment 1946

1a DENYS GORDON ('Tiny') MILNE, CBE (1982), MA (Oxon), BSc (Oxon), company director, of Westbury, Old Lane, St. John's, Crowborough, East Sussex (1966-2000), 46 Beacon Hill, Dormansland, Surrey (1961-1966); b 12 Jan 1926 Lerwick, Shetland Islands; educ Epsom College 1937-44; Pilot Officer, RAF Regt. 1944-47 (Prize Cadet, Officer Cadet Training Unit No. 24 1946; Adjutant 2700 Lt AA Squadron); Defence Medal, War Medal 1939-45; Brasenose Coll., Oxford (MA Hons Mod. History) 1947-50, Colonial Service Course 1950-51, Blues in athletics and lacrosse, represented Scotland in discus; Asst. District Officer, Colonial Admin. Service, Northern Nigeria 1951-55; British Petroleum Co. 1955-81 (BP, Nigeria and Ghana 1955-61; BP, London 1961-63; Gen. Mngr BP, Nigeria 1963-65; Rgnl Crdntr BP, London 1965-71; Dir. Shell Mex and BP, London 1966-71; Chm. and Man. Dir. BP Southern Oil, Cape Town, South Africa 1971-75; Dep. Chm. BP Oil Ltd, London 1975-76; Man. Dir. and Chief Exec. BP Oil Ltd, London 1976-81); President Inst. of Petroleum 1978-80; Member Scottish Economic Council 1978-81; Trustee Nat. Motor Museum 1979-89; Member Adv. Cttee on Energy Conservation 1980-81; President UK Petroleum Industry Assoc. 1980-81; Dir. Business in the Community 1981-84; Dir. Silkolene Lubricants Plc 1981-91; Dir. Fluor Daniel Ltd 1981-90; Dir. The Weir Group Plc 1983-92; Chm. Horder Centre for Arthritis, Crowborough 1983-96; Member Court of Assistants Worshipful Company of Tallow Chandlers (Master 1993-94) from 1986; Chm. Council of Epsom College 1990-95; Trustee and Dep. Chm. Centre for South African Studies, York Univ. 1990-95; m 5 Jul 1951 Pamela Mary, MAOT, elder daughter and senior heraldic co-heiress of Oliver Nassau Senior (see lineage of Senior below); 19th in descent, via the families of Ham(m)ersley (see lineage of Ham(m)ersley below), Eden (see AVON E. and EDEN OF WINTON B.), Lambton (see DURHAM E.), Eure (see EURE B., Burke's 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages'), Bowes (see STRATHMORE & KINGHORNE E.), Clifford (see CUMBERLAND E., Burke's 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages'), Percy (see NORTHUMBERLAND D.) and Mortimer (see MARCH E., Burke's 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages'), from Philippa Plantagenet, Countess of Ulster and of March (daughter of Lionel, Duke of Clarence (1338-1368), 2nd son of Edward III), from whom the House of York derived their claim to the throne*; 14th in descent from Sir Roland de Velville (d 1535), Constable of Beaumaris Castle, natural son of Henry VII (according to the Dictionary of Welsh Biography) by an unknown Breton lady (possibly a member of the de Vieilleville family, Counts of Durtal, Angers), via the families of Hughes of Uffington House, Uffington, Berks and Donnington Priory, Newbury, Berks (see lineage of Hughes below and BLG 1847 under 'HUGHES OF DONNINGTON PRIORY'), Salusbury of Plas-y-Ward, Denbighshire, Salusbury of Bachecraig, Denbighshire, Norris of Speke, Lancs., Salusbury of Lleweni, Denbighshire (see Burke's 'Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies') and Tudor of Berain, Denbighshire; descended from the family of Wynn of Gwydir, senior male heirs of the Princes of Gwynedd (North Wales), see WILLIAMS-WYNN Bt., and also, through Kathryn of Berain (1534-1591), daughter and heiress of Tudor ap Robert Fychan of Berain, from Marchweithian (b about 1005), Lord of Isaled (modern Denbigh), founder of the 11th Noble Tribe of Wales (see Meyrick, Sir Samuel Rush, 'Heraldic Visitations of Wales and Part of the Marches', London, 1896, Vol. 2, p. 333); he d 9 Feb 2000 leaving issue,

The arms of Hammersley, Poulett (Paulet), Eden, Greenwood, Buncombe and Thomson, ancestors of Pamela Mary Senior.

*See the pedigree at the end of this document.

1b GRAHAM NASSAU GORDON, of whom we treat
2b Alan Gordon; b 6 Nov 1962; educ Holmwood House School, Tunbridge Wells; King's School, Canterbury; m 30 Apr 1990 Janis Louise Watson and has issue,

1c Lily Louise Senior; b 25 Jan 1993
2c Ione Catherine Gordon; b 31 May 1994
3c Sorrel Alice Cunliffe; b 19 Feb 1997
4c Robyn Watson; b 30 May 1999

1b Claire Jaqueline; b 30 Aug 1954; educ Convent of St. Agnes & St. Michael, East Grinstead and Rosemead School, Chichester; m 15 May 1982 Henry Edward Brown, geologist, of Johannesburg, South Africa, and has issue,

1c Julie Pamela Margaret; b 19 Sep 1986
2c Amber Elizabeth Joy; b 20 Oct 1989

2a Eric Nightingale Campbell, MD, FRCR, FRCP&S (Can.), DMRD, FRCP (Ed.), physician; b 8 Feb 1928; educ Perth Junior and Senior Academies; Edinburgh University (MB, Ch. B); sometime Professor and Chairman of the Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California School of Medicine, subsequently Professor Emeritus of Radiological Sciences; m Dec 1953 (divorce 1996) Norah Symington, MB, Ch. B (Edin.), Chief of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Professor of Radiological Sciences (Nuclear Medicine), University of California School of Medicine, and had issue,

1b Alastair Gordon Marston; b 21 Nov 1957
2b Eric Steven; b 19 Feb 1959
3b Peter John Campbell; b 18 Jul 1961; d 19 Jun 2000
4b Christopher; b 1 Sep 1967; m - (divorce -) and d 26 Jul 2005 leaving issue,

1c Norah Marie; b 13 Dec 1994

1b Penelope Marion; b 8 Sep 1969

He m, secondly, 20 Sep 1997 Anne Tuanjai Pho-Ong

He m, secondly, Joyce Hazel Hanslowe and d Mar 1942 having had further issue,

1a Mary (who adopted the surname Milne-McRae), historian, linguist and pianist, onetime competitor in the Tchaikovsky Competition and sometime State Archivist of Tasmania; b 19 Jul 1941; m - McRae, but he d without issue


Arms

'I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.' - Song of Solomon 2:1

Arms: Quarterly, first and fourth, azure a cross moline between four fleur-de-lys or (for MILNE), second and third, per fess, gules and azure, a fess ermine between, in chief, two lions heads erased or and, in base, a dolphin naiant embowed argent (for SENIOR).
Mantle and helm: Above the shield is placed a chapeau Gules furred Ermine (in respect of his feudal Barony of Mordington), thereon a Helm befitting his degree (a great tilting helm) with a mantling Azure doubled Or.
Crest: On a wreath of the colours, the head, neck and wings of a swan bearing in its beak a Tudor rose Proper seeded Or.
Motto: 'Honore et amore' ('Honour and love'), derived from the arms of Sir Hugh Hamersley (1565-1636), Lord Mayor of London 1627, which arms, with due differences*, were granted to Thomas Hammersley (1747-1812) in 1803.

*Gules, three rams heads couped erminois.


The Barony of Mordington

Seal of William de Mordington dated 1246 (Durham University Library Archives & Special Collections: Medieval seals based on Greenwell & Blair's catalogue, no. 2896)

According to Black's 'Surnames of Scotland' the name 'Mordington' is derived from the 'old barony of the same name in Berwickshire, the 'tun' of a Saxon named Mordyn, Mording or Morthing. William de Mordington, the first recorded of the name, appears soon after 1200 as a vassal of the prior of Durham (Raine*). William de Morthington held part of the vill of Lamberton, c. 1235, was Chancellor of Scotland in the reign of Alexander II.... He and his son, Sir Peter de Mordingtoun, are frequent witnesses to Coldingham charters (Raine*, App.)... The family appears to have ended in an heiress, the afore-mentioned Agnes, daughter of Sir Peter de Mordingtoun, who married Henry de Haliburton.'

*'The History and Antiquities of North Durham...', Rev. James Raine, London, 1852.

The first mention of Mordington is in a charter (now lost) of King Edgar (c.943-975) granting various lands in southern Scotland, including Mordington, to Durham cathedral; this grant was confirmed by William Rufus on 29 August 1095 (Durham University Library Archives & Special Collections, Durham Cathedral Muniments, Miscellaneous Charter 559). However, the original charter of erection of the feudal or territorial Barony of Mordington (Berwickshire), which is now a personal title as a consequence of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (but see below), is lost at a date before 1312 to 1329, in which period the Barony was resigned by Sir Henry de Haliburton (a signatory of the Ragman Roll of 1296 as 'tenaunt le Roi du counte de Berewyk') and his spouse Agnes de Morthingtoun (evidently the heiress) to Robert the Bruce for re-grant to Thomas Randolph, 1st Earl of Moray, who commanded the left wing at the Battle of Bannockburn (1314) and was Regent of Scotland from 1329. It seems likely that the barony was granted to Thomas Randolph after he and Sir James Douglas ('the good Sir James') captured Berwick-upon-Tweed in 1318. A lordship of Mordington, held by the family of that name, is referred to in charters dating from the time of Patrick, 5th Earl of Dunbar (1152-1232), which means that the lordship/barony of Mordington is older than the oldest surviving Scottish peerage, the Earldom of Sutherland, which dates from about 1235, and also older than the oldest surviving English peerage, the barony of de Ros, which dates from 1265. In 1335, on the death of John Randolph, 3rd Earl of Moray (who commanded the first Scottish division at the battle of Halidon Hill, near Berwick-upon-Tweed, in 1333), the Barony passed via an heiress from the Earls of Moray to the Earls of Dunbar or March and then also by marriage (as dowry) to the Douglas family of Dalkeith, later Earls of Morton, and was held by that family from 1372 until 1636, apart from a period of forfeiture between 1581 and 1585 when it was held by the 1st and 2nd Dukes of Lennox and 1585 to 1588 when it was held by Archibald Douglas, 8th Earl of Angus. In 1634 the lands of Over Mordington were detached from the Barony and granted to Sir James Douglas (second son of William Douglas, 10th Earl of Angus), later 1st Lord Mordington (which title became extinct in 1755), and in 1636 the Barony, which then consisted solely of the lands of Nether Mordington (with Edrington House, the manor place of Nether Mordington, as the caput), was granted to Thomas Ramsay (of the family of Ramsay of Edington, near Chirnside, Berwickshire, apparently a branch of the family of Ramsay, Earls of Dalhousie), Minister of the Kirk at Foulden, Berwickshire, and Helen Kellie, his spouse, to be held in free regality ('in libera regalitate'). The Barony was subsequently owned by the families of Douglas of Mordington (1658-1685), Douglas (1685-1773), Douglas Watson (1773-1785), Marshall (1785-1834), Soady (1834-1864), Chirnside (1864-1939), Sutherland (1939-1949), Edwards (1949-1962), Robertson (1962-1975) and Elphinston (1975-1998) until it was acquired jointly by the present owners in 1998 when they purchased Edrington House, the caput (legal head) of the barony, and the remaining lands.

The Barony of Mordington has been held in free regality ('in libera regalitate'), that is as a palatine lordship, since 24th March 1381-2 when, on the marriage of his son, James (d. before May 1441), to Elizabeth, daughter of the future Robert III, Sir James Douglas received a grant of Mordington and other lands from Robert II in free regality, with the 4 pleas of the Crown ('Scots Peerage', VI, 350 referring to Reg. Honor. de Morton; also Register of the Great Seal, II, 993 being a charter of confirmation under the Great Seal dated 9th July 1470 to William Douglas of Morton and Whittingham referring, inter alia, to the 'baroniam de Mordingtoun' and to grants of Mordington 'in libera regalitate' by Robert II and Robert III).

  • By a charter under the Great Seal dated 17th October 1540 the Barony of Mordington (held in regality) was incorporated into the Regality of Dalkeith.
  • By a charter under the Great Seal dated 13th December 1581 the Regality of Dalkeith was incorporated into the Dukedom of Lennox.
  • By a charter under the Great Seal dated 29th January 1585-6 the Regality of Dalkeith was dissolved from the Dukedom of Lennox and granted to Archibald Douglas, 8th Earl of Angus.
  • On the death of Archibald Douglas, 8th Earl of Angus, on 4th August 1588 the Regality of Dalkeith devolved upon Sir William Douglas of Lochleven (Scots Peerage, VI, 371), who succeeded to the Earldom of Morton.
  • By a charter under the Great Seal dated 23rd August 1634 (RMS, IX, 214; RS1/41 ff. 128v-131v) William Douglas, 6th Earl of Morton, resigned lands within the Barony of Mordington (being the lands of Over Mordington and others) into the hands of the King for re-grant to Sir James Douglas of Mordington, second son of William Douglas, 10th Earl of Angus.
  • By a charter under the Great Seal dated 13th September 1636 (RMS, IX, 589; C2/55/2, no. 245; RS1/45 ff. 144-146) William Douglas, 6th Earl of Morton, resigned the remaining lands of the Barony of Mordington (being the lands of Nether Mordington, dissolved from the Regality of Dalkeith) into the hands of the King for re-grant to Thomas Ramsay, Minister of the Kirk at Foulden, and Helen Kellie, his spouse, to be held by the said Thomas Ramsay and Helen Kellie, his spouse, 'in libera regalitate'. This Regality, which was not a new regality but a confirmation of the regality which had existed since 1381-2* and which was confirmed by a Crown Charter of Resignation and Confirmation in 1856 (C2/256 fo. 97, no. 256 - see page 98, line 23), has been held by their successors in title ever since, though regality jurisdiction was (purportedly) successively reduced (1747) and then abolished (2004).

*Two arguments have been suggested concerning the validity of the grant of regality in 1636. Firstly, that the grant of a new regality required the personal signature of the king (because the Barons of the Exchequer had no authority to grant something new i.e. alienate Crown rights) and, secondly, that a subject could not create a lord of regality. However, the regality was not a new regality because the Barony of Mordington had been held in regality since 1381-2 (so there was no creation of a new regality, merely the transfer of an existing regality, and the Barons of the Exchequer could receive resignations and make re-grants of existing subjects) and, in any event, in 1407 the Earl of Douglas bestowed regality rights over Buittle, Preston and Borgue on Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith (see Alexander Grant’s ‘Franchises North of the Border’, p. 14 and Reg. Honor. de Morton, vol. II, p. 203), which shows that a lord of regality could in fact transfer regality rights over part of his lands to another person. In addition, an ordinary baron could not create a baron (as such) but he certainly could create a baron (in effect) by selling his barony. The charter of 1386 (Reg. Honor. de Morton, vol. II, p. 154) which purportedly erected the regalities of Dalkeith and Morton is key because while it erects the various lands and baronies referred to into one barony and regality of Dalkeith ('in unam integram et liberam baroniam et in liberam regaliam feu regalitatem') there are no parallel words of erection for the lands and baronies of the purported regality of Morton (i.e. the baronies of Morton, Mordington and Whittinghame), probably because these lands and baronies were held not of the King but of the Earl of March.* The erroneous reference to a regality of Morton being erected at that date (in Alexander Grant’s ‘Franchises North of the Border’, p. 37) appears to have arisen because the service due from the relevant lands and baronies (one silver penny) was to be paid at Morton. While these lands and baronies were held in regality they were not united into one regality, which means that the Barony of Mordington was originally held on its own in regality. This is significant because when the Barony of Mordington was dissolved from the Regality of Dalkeith in 1636 (into which it was incorporated in 1540), what was dissolved from that regality was what was incorporated into that regality in the first place; a barony held in regality. It cannot be otherwise because, as Croft Dickinson makes clear ('The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath 1523-1542', p. xxxvii, l), a barony, being impartible and indestructible (p. xxxii, xxxvi)**, retained its separate legal identity (and its separate court) unless united 'in unam et integram baroniam', which is why the Barony of Mordington continued to exist as a separate legal entity even after it had been incorporated into the Regality of Dalkeith; that legal entity was a barony held in regality. The barony held in regality was a creation of the Crown (in 1381/2) so it would have been creating 'something new' to have split off the regality rights from that barony, not the other way round. But these arguments are academic in any event in view of the resignation and confirmation (which is a re-grant) by Crown Charter in 1856.

*The Earldom of Dunbar/March was forfeited to the Crown in 1435 (RPS, 1435/3) so the Barony of Mordington was held of the Crown from that year.

**See also Peter McIntyre, 'Introduction to Scottish Legal History', Ch. XXVIII, 'The Franchise Courts', p. 375, where he states 'It required a royal grant to create a baron court; once created it was impartible and indestructible; only a royal act, the Heritable Jurisdcitions Act 1747 (20 Geo. II c.43) could limit the franchise jurisdiction of the baron court.' and APS, ii, 49, c. 16 (1457) where it was enacted 'Item, as to regalities, it is statute and ordained that all privileges and freedoms be kept as they were founded.' Note also that the Regality of Dalkeith, including the Barony of Mordington (held in regality) was, by an Act of Parliament of 1567 (NAS, PA2/10, II, ff.30r-33v.), protected from any form ('any manner of way' - see below) of revocation for all time ('On the which day our sovereign lady, with the advice of the three estates of her realm in this present parliament, ratifies, approves and confirms, for her highness and successors, the charter and infeftment made and granted by her majesty to her trusted cousin and counsellor James, earl of Morton, lord Dalkeith etc., and Dame Elizabeth Douglas, his spouse, the longer liver of them, their male heirs contained in the said infeftment and assignees, of all and sundry the lands, lordship and regality of Dalkeith and earldom of Morton, which is specified and contained at length in the said infeftment of the date at Edinburgh, 17 October 1564, and all and sundry points, articles and privileges thereof, and discerns the same to be as good and sufficient to the said James, earl of Morton and Elizabeth, his spouse, the longest liver of them, their male heirs contained therein and assignees, for possessing and enjoying of the said lands, lordship, earldom and regality perpetually in all time coming, as if the same had been given and granted by her majesty after her lawful and perfect age of 25 years complete, with the advice and consent of the three estates of her realm, notwithstanding our sovereign lady's revocation made in this present parliament or to be made in any time hereafter, under which said infeftment shall never be comprehended by any manner of way;').

Note, in this context, that the Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1469 (RPS, A1469/2), by which, in perpetuity, the heir to the throne automatically becomes Duke of Rothesay on birth or on the accession to the throne of his mother or father, and by which any alienation (without due consideration and consent) is deemed void, is still held to be good law (if it wasn't then then the Prince of Wales would not be Duke of Rothesay). So, if the Act of 1469 which governs succession to the Dukedom of Rothesay (a regality) in perpetuity is still vaild then the Act of 1567 which protects the Barony of Mordington (a regality) in perpetuity must also still be valid. Further, since the Dukedom of Rothesay (a feudal barony and regality as per 'Complete Peerage', 2nd Ed., vol. XI, p. 208, n. b) is deemed to be a peerage it follows that the Barony of Mordington (a feudal barony and regality) must also be a peerage.

Note also that a charter of 20/6/1589 (RMS, V, 1674) granted the Regality of Dalkeith, including the barony of Mordington, to William Douglas, Earl of Morton, and to a series of heirs, whom failing 'to the assignees of said earl whatsoever'. According to J. F. Riddell, in his 'Inquiry into the Law and Practice in Scottish Peerages' (Edinburgh, 1862, Vol. I, p. 208-211) this power of assignation would have been enough to allow the simple conveyance of a personal peerage title to an assignee, as happened with Cardross ('Complete Peerage', 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 18-19), so would logically have been enough to allow the sale of a feudal barony held in regality to a purchaser (being an assignee). In other words, if the Earl of Morton had the power to assign the Barony of Mordington to an assignee at all, he must also have had the power to assign the Barony with its impartible regality jurisdiction.

Palatinates and regalities

Palatinates (or regalities as they are called in Scotland) were usually lawless border regions granted to a high-ranking noble who was given royal jurisdiction to enable him to maintain law and order in the palatinate ('palatine' is derived from the Latin palatium, that is 'palace'), and he reigned within his lands legally as a 'reguli' or 'little king' (according to Lord Bankton*, 'An Institute of the Laws of Scotland', II, III, para. 83, where he refers to a regality as a 'royal dignity'). 'Hence owners of counties palatine were formerly said to have "jura regalia" in their counties as fully as the king in his palace' (1 Bl. Comm. 117); that is, they exercised full royal power.

*Lord Bankton is an ‘institutional writer’ which means that his works are regarded as authoritative in Scottish courts of law.

Lord Bankton, 'An Institute of the Laws of Scotland' (1751-53), II, III, para. 83

In his 'History of Scotland' John Hill Burton (1809-1881), Historiographer Royal (1867-1881), stated (vol. viii, p. 516) that a regality was 'a separate little kindgom carved out of the realm, where a great man was indulged with a gift of supreme [i.e. royal] authority'.

Sir George Mackenzie, an institutional writer regarded as authoritative in Scottish courts of law, states that Lords of Regality in Scotland had the same powers as Earls Palatine in England (Nisbet, ‘System of Heraldry’, vol. II, p. 46) and he also says ('Observations', 47) that 'A lord of regality is Regulus, a little king, and takes off the people from an immediate dependence on the king'. Thus a regality was a kingdom and the title 'lord of regality' was a royal title. Note that the caput or head of a regality was technically a palatium, that is a palace or 'seat of royal authority' (Nisbet, 'System of Heraldry', Vol. II, Part IV, p. 46).

'Regality powers were superior to those traditionally exercised by earls within the old earldoms'. (Alexander Grant, ‘Franchises North of the Border’, p. 39)

For use of the style ‘Palatine’ in Scotland see Complete Peerage, vol. 12A, pp. 389-391, which refers to David Stewart, 5th Earl of Strathearn, and his successors being called ‘Earl Palatine of Strathearn’ following the erection of that earldom into a regality in 1371.

In England the Palatine Counties of Chester and Durham, for example, were created to administer the border areas between England and Wales and England and Scotland respectively. The Duchy of Lancaster still retains certain palatine powers relating to the County Palatine of Lancaster.

The Palatinate of Durham was ruled by the Bishop of Durham, who was known as the Prince-Bishop of Durham until the passing of The Durham (County Palatine) Act 1836, reflecting the fact that palatine lords were legally sovereign princes of their domains, from which the royal authority was excluded, although the lord of the palatinate still owed allegiance to his sovereign ('There are two kings in England, namely, the lord king of England wearing a crown in sign of his regality, and the lord bishop of Durham wearing a mitre in place of a crown in sign of his regality in the diocese of Durham' - William de St. Botolph, 1302, Public Record Office, London, Assize Roll 226, m. 1d).

'Anthony [Bek], Prince-Bishop of Durham, one of the chief potentates of his age, and "the prowdest Lorde in Christientie." "No man in all the Realm, except the King, did equal him for habit, behaviour, and military pomp: and he was more versed in State affairs than in ecclesiastical duties; ever assisting the King most powerfully in his wars; having sometimes in Scotland 26 Standard Bearers, and of his ordinary Retinue 140 Knights, so that he was thought to be rather a temporal Prince than a priest or Bishop." - Dugdale. As Prince Palatine, there was not, in point of fact, a single attribute of sovereignty that did not belong to him. He levied taxes; raised troops; sate in judgment of life and death; coined money; instituted corporations by charter; created Barons, who formed his council or Parliament, and granted fairs and markets. He was Lord High Admiral of the seas or waters within or adjoining the Palatinate; impressed ships for war; and had Vice-Admirals and Courts of Admiralty. Nor was aught wanting of the state and dignity of Royalty. Nobles addressed him only on bended knee; and knights waited bare-headed in his presence-chamber. His wealth was enormous, and his expenditure as magnificent as his income.' (The Duchess of Cleveland, 'The Battle Abbey Roll', vol. I, p. 121).

According to Burke's 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages', the Palatine Earldom of Chester was granted in 1070 to Hugh de Abrincis (d'Avranches), otherwise 'Hugh Lupus' or 'Hugh the Fat', by William the Conqueror 'to hold as freely by the sword as the King himself held England by the crown', that is with complete royal jurisdiction. In Scotland, the legal term 'in libera regalitate' conferred all the powers exercised by the king, excluding only the right to try treason, but including complete criminal jurisdiction, including the power to try the Four Pleas of the Crown (murder, rape, arson and robbery). The Palatine Earldom of Chester had its own parliament until 1543 and the County Palatine of Durham had its own court system until 1971. See also the Paladins or Peers of Charlemagne, the most famous of whom was Roland.

The arms of the Bishop of Durham. These arms include a crozier and sword in saltire, as opposed to the two croziers in saltire borne by other (non-palatine) Bishops, and are surmounted by a bishop's mitre issuing out of a coronet. This is not a crest as such because in heraldic theory clerics do not fight and so cannot use helmets in their arms or, consequently, have a crest (which surmounts the helmet), but equates to the coronet which surmounts the shield in the arms of a peer. These two additaments, the sword and the coronet, symbolized the temporal power of the Bishop as a palatine lord or count palatine. The coronet is often referred to as a crest coronet or a ducal coronet but the design seems to vary; the first or left-hand seems to be a ducal coronet (strawberry leaves), the second and fourth seem to be the same as currently used by grandchildren of the sovereign (strawberry leaves and fleur-de lys) and the third seems to be the coronet of a marquess (strawberry leaves and pearls). One Bishop of Durham, Nathaniel Crew, 3rd Baron Crew, showed an earl's coronet. It would appear that temporal (i.e. non-clerical) earls/counts palatine in England were entitled to use the coronet of an earl, as demonstrated by the seal used by the 2nd Lord Baltimore (1605-1675), which was subsequently adopted as the seal of the state of Maryland.

The seal of the state of Maryland, originally sent from England at the time of settlement, showing the earl's coronet used by the 2nd Lord Baltimore, to whom Maryland was granted by Charles I in 1632. The statute adopting the seal states 'Above the shield is placed an Earl's coronet (indicating that though only a baron in England, Calvert was an earl or count palatine in Maryland)'. The crown charter granting Maryland to Lord Baltimore grants, against the heading 'Jurisdiction of a Count Palatine', 'all and singular the like, and as ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, royalties, liberties, immunities, royall [sic] rights and franchises of what kind soever temporal, as well as by sea, as by land, within the county, iles, iletts, and limits aforesaid; to have, exercise , use and enjoy the same, as amply as any Bishop of Durham, within the Bishoprick, or County Palatine of Durham, in our Kingdome of England, hath at any time heretofore had, held, used, or enjoyed, or of right ought, or might have had, held, used or enjoyed.' Note also that the same charter grants, as a count palatine, 'the free and absolute power [...] to conferre favours, rewards and honours, upon such inhabitants within the Province aforesaid, as shall deserve the same, and to invest them, with what titles and dignities soever, as he shall think fit (so as they be not such as are now used in England).' This conferred the right to create a colonial nobility (Browne, William Hand (1890), ’George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert: Barons Baltimore of Baltimore’, New York, Dodd, Mead, and Company, p. 36). On p. 37 it states: 'This charter, as Gardiner has well remarked, provided for a consitutional government according to the ideas of James and of Charles. There was to be a hereditary feudal monarchy, surrounded by a body of nobility deriving its rank, dignities and privileges from the prince as the fountain of honour. The law-making power was vested in the prince, not in the people, who could only advise and assent or dissent. The proprietary lacked no single royal power; his title ran 'Cecilius, Absolute Lord of Maryland and Avalon' and the only difference between him and an independent sovereign was the acknowledgment of fealty typified by the tender of the arrows and the reservation of the fifths of gold and silver.' See also the charter of Charles II in relation to Carolina dated 30/6/1665 which grants similar palatine powers.

In a letter to me dated 16/8/2012 Portcullis Pursuivant (College of Arms, London) wrote that, in his view, 'the Bishop of Durham is entitled to a ducal coronet in addition to a mitre by reason of his former secular status as a palatine', so even a former lord palatine is entitled to a ducal coronet. In his 'A Complete Guide to Heraldry' (1909, p. 604) Arthur Fox-Davies wrote: 'The Bishopric of Durham, until the earlier part of the nineteenth century, was a Palatinate, and in earlier times the Bishops of Durham, who had their own parliament and Barons of the Palatinate, exercised a jurisdiction and regality, limited in extent certainly, but little short in fact or effect of the power of the Crown. If ever any ecclesiastic can be correctly said to have enjoyed temporal power, the Bishops of Durham can be so described. The Prince-Bishops of the Continent had no such attributes of regality vested in themselves as were enjoyed by the Bishops of Durham. These were in truth kings within their bishoprics, and even to the present day though modern geographies and modern social legislation have divided the bishopric into other divisions one still hears the term employed of ''within" or "without" the bishopric. The result of this temporal power enjoyed by the Bishops of Durham is seen in their heraldic achievement. In place of the two crosiers in saltire behind the shield, as used by the other bishops, the Bishops of Durham place a sword and a crosier in saltire behind their shield to signify both their temporal and spiritual jurisdiction. The mitre of the Bishop of Durham is heraldically represented with the rim encircled by a ducal coronet, and it has thereby become usual to speak of the coronetted mitre of the Bishop of Durham; but it should be clearly borne in mind that the coronet formed no part of the actual mitre, and probably no mitre has ever existed in which the rim has been encircled by a coronet. But the Bishops of Durham, by virtue of their temporal status, used a coronet, and by virtue of their ecclesiastical status used a mitre, and the representation of both of these at one and the same time has resulted in the coronet being placed to encircle the rim of the mitre. The result has been that, heraldically, they are now always represented as one and the same article.'

Earls and bishops palatine (in England) and lords of regality (in Scotland) therefore had the right to create their own barons; that is, effectively, to create franchise baronial jurisdictions out of their own franchise palatine/regality jurisdiction. The Barons of the Earldom of Chester were, in order of seniority: The Baron of Halton, the Baron of Mantalto (Hawarden), the Baron of Wich Maldebeng (Nantwich), the Baron of Malpas, the Baron of Shipbrook, the Baron of Dunham Massey, the Baron of Kinderton and the Baron of Stockport. The barons of the County Palatine of Durham included the Hyltons of Hylton Castle, the Bulmers of Brancepeth Castle, the Conyers of Sockburne (Sockburn), the Hansards of Evenwood, the Lumleys of Lumley Castle and the Nevilles of Raby Castle.

With regard to Scotland, Professor Croft Dickinson (1897-1963), the leading academic authority on Scottish feudal baronies, states in his introduction to 'The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath 1523-1542'* (p. lix): 'Finally, in considering these grants of rights of public justice it is clear that the tenant received them from his lord because his social position entitled him to them, because, in fact, he was already a "baron" as the word was understood in feudal society. He might not hold of the King; he might not hold in liberam baroniam. Nevertheless his jurisdiction was baronial and while bearing Craig's caveat in mind, we are bound to conclude that those tenants who held of an earl or lord and who had a right of furca and fossa were 'barons'. The jurisdiction must be our test, irrespective of whether that jurisdiction was derived from an earl or king.' See also p. l, n. 2, where he gives examples of baronies held of earls (e.g. Newdosk held of the Earl of Crawford and Cowie held of the Earl of Errol) and of grants by earls 'in liberam baroniam', and p. lii, where he states 'It is clear that in certain cases the earls granted lands to be held of them with rights of public justice, and that their "barons" regarded these rights as being derived directly from the earl who, to them, was "regulus" if not "rex". An example of a barony granted by a Lord of Regality is Muckart which was granted by the Archbishop of St. Andrews (Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, 'Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland', P.S.A.S, Vol. LXXIX, p.117, n. 2).

*Described by Sir Malcolm Innes of Edingight, formerly Lord Lyon, as 'the most authoritative account of the formation and functions of baronies in Scotland', 'The Scottish Genealogist', vol. 47, June 2000, pp. 35-41.

Sir William Betham (1779-1853), Ulster King of Arms, in his 'On Palatine Honours in Ireland' (The Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 1850, vol. V, p. 200) stated: 'These [palatine] lords could create tenures and barons, or erect a fee into a barony, which gave the possessor the title of baron and the same rights and jurisdiction, within his barony, as a baron of the kingdom had, that is, jurisdiction of life and limb, or infangethef and outfangethef. They could also create burgage tenures, and incorporate towns, and grant by their charters of incorporation similar privileges to their men as the crown did.'

The power to create barons still exists in Scotland and was exercised into the 1990s* according to Hugh Peskett, Consultant Editor for Scotland, Burke's 'Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage'. See Peskett, Hugh; 'Scottish Feudal Baronies', 'Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage', Burke's, 107th Ed. and 'East Lothian Life', Autumn 2003, p. 17, where he wrote: 'There are some rare exceptions [to baronies being held of the Crown], deriving from the ancient power exercised by the earls of the seven ancient earldoms, and by the Lords of the Isles, to erect baronies (a power which they still have and which was exercised into the 1990s)'.

*The Barony of Skelbo was re-granted by the Countess of Sutherland in 1996.

Note that 'Irish Pedigrees' (John O'Hart, 5th Ed, vol. II, p. 214 under 'FitzGibbon'), states that John FitzGerald (d 1261), 1st Baron of Desmond (Ireland), 'by virtue of his royal seignory as a Count Palatine' created his three sons hereditary knights (John FitzGerald was created 'The Knight of Glin' or 'The Black Knight', Maurice FitzGerald was created 'Knight of Kerry' or 'The Green Knight' and Gilbert FitzGerald/FitzGibbon was created 'The White Knight' on account of his fair hair). This shows (1) that a baron who held a palatinate was a Count Palatine and (2) that a Count Palatine could create hereditary knights. The last White Knight died in 1611, the last Knight of Glin died in 2011; the Knights of Kerry are still extant.

The 'Correspondence and Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Claims of the Maltese Nobility', presented to the Houses of Parliament in May 1878 by the Governor of Malta, C. T. van Straubanzee, states:

'20. These islands were granted to the Order [of Malta] as a noble, free and absolute fee (feudum nobile, liberum, et francum) by the Emperor Charles the Fifth as King of Sicily Ultra or of the Island of Sicily, by a patent given at Castelfranco, on the 24th May 1530, under the royal seal of the Kingdom of Sicily Ultra. The Grand Masters were, by that deed, bound to acknowledge, as lords of the feud, the Kings of Sicily and their successors for the time being, to whom they were to pay annually the homage of a falcon, and from whom they were to receive the investiture, according to the enactments of the common law.
21. The Grand Masters who, under the aforesaid dependence, governed these islands as sovereign princes, were twenty-eight in number. We are not aware whether the first twenty Grand Masters from A.D. 1530 to A.D. 1710 ever created new titles of nobility; it appears only that they renewed several grants which had previously become extinct. Grand Master Lascaris, in fact, granted again in 1646 the title of 'Barone di Budack', which had been extinguished.
The creation of titles of nobility was certainly an indisputable right of the Grand Masters, for on the territory subject to their jurisdiction they exercised all the power inherent in a real and full sovereignty.
22. Since that year (A.D. 1710), under the grandmastership of Fr. D. Raimondo Perellos y Roccafull, the Grand Masters began to create nobles by patent, but conferring only upon them the title of baron. Two patents were granted by the foresaid Grand Master Perellos, one on the 24th December 1879, by which he created the barony of Gomerino, and on the 23rd April 1716, by which the barony of Budack was conferred on Gio Pio De Piro. At a later period, Grand Master Fr. D. Antonio Manoel de Vilhena, who governed the Principality from A.D. 1722 to A.D. 1736, issued four other patents creating four barons, but two of these titles are now extinguished. His Successor Fr. D. Raimondo Despuig conferred two other titles of baron, on the 2nd June 1737 and on the 18th August of the same year. Grand Master Fr. D. Emmanuel Pinto de Foncecca created two titles of count, on the 16th May 1743 and on the 20th January 1745, and lastly, Grand Master Fr. Don Emmanuel de Rohan signed eleven diplomas, from 1775 to 1796, conferring upon several noblemen the titles of baron, count and marquis respectively.'

The above extract shows that the sovereign right to create titles existed where sovereign power was held by a prince as the feudal tenant of a sovereign superior; in this case, the Emperor as King of Sicily. It also shows that such sovereign princes could, inter allia, grant the titles of Baron, Count and Marquis. These titles were recognized by the British Government and therefore provide a legal precedent with respect to titles granted by other sovereign princes within the jurisidiction of the British crown, since the titles were recognized by Crown on the advice of the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords (which is the same process of recognition used for British peerages). What makes a tenant a sovereign prince is the exercise of the royal power, and Lords of Regality in Scotland exercised ALL the powers of the Crown except the right to try cases of treason. Thus, Lords of Regality are sovereign princes, according to this precedent, and as such can create titles, including the titles of Baron, Count (Earl) and Marquis.

Note that right of regality in Scotland included, along with rights of chancery and other rights, rights of admiralty (Croft Dickinson, p. xlii*), where appropriate, and that these rights were protected by article 19 of the Act of Union of 1707 which states 'that the Heritable Rights of Admiralty and Vice-Admiralties in Scotland be reserved to the respective Proprietors as Rights of Property, subject nevertheless, as to the manner of Exercising such Heritable Rights to such Regulations and Alterations as shall be thought proper to be made by the Parliament of Great Britain'. Lords of Regality would therefore also have been Lords Admiral in the Admiralty of Scotland, if their lands were coastal (which Mordington is, given that it is bounded by the River Whitadder and that there is no bridge in Scotland below the barony before the open sea), and the title of Lord Admiral survived the Heritable Jurisdictions Act of 1747 in the same way that the title of Hereditary Sheriff, as recognised by the Lord Lyon (e.g. Argyll, Bute, Wigtown), and Lord of Regality, also survived that Act; that is, on the basis that, according to Senior Counsel, the Act must be construed by reference to its purpose and was an Act to remove jurisdictions, not titles. Note also that s.10 Public Offices (Scotland) Act 1817 confirmed that the title Vice-Admiral of Scotland still existed at that date. See also Sacheverell, William, 'An Account of the Isle of Man', Manx Society, 1859, Essay III, where it states '[The Lord of Man's] right of Admiralty was likewise asserted in this assembly [the Manx Parliament], as wrecks, royal fish, &c., are his by his regality.' For use of the title 'Lord Admiral' by a Lord of Regality see Grierson, James, 'St. Andrews as it was and as it is', 3rd Ed., Cupar, 1838, p. 56 where it says 'The power and privilege of admiralty was also among the rights of the see, and the archbishop was lord admiral in all places within the bounds of his own regality.' Since the Archbishop was lord admiral he was entitled to describe himself as 'Lord Admiral' and the admiralty within which he was a Lord Admiral was the Admiralty of Scotland; hence he was a Lord Admiral in the Admiralty of Scotland.

*'The lord of regality might possess his own chancery for the issue of brieves, which were served in his own name and not in the name of the King; his own mint; his own rights of admiralty, and so forth... The only right which a full regality did not possess was the right to try treason'; that is, a grant of full rights of regality was a grant of all the rights exercised by the King, including rights of admiralty and excluding only treason. See also Grant, Alexander, 'Franchises North of the Border: Baronies and Regalities in Medieval Scotland', The Boydell Press, 2008, p. 12, with reference to the regality of Sprouston being held with 'the same liberties as the Lord Alexander King of Scotland used to hold his other lands of his kingdom'. Of course, these rights included the right to grant arms, as described above, which right was preserved by s.63 Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000.

In 1936 it was written that 'The Regality Court of Holyroodhouse is still active. The Hereditary Keeper of the Palace, the Duke of Hamilton, as Lord of Regality, appoints a bailie and other officials to the Court.' - 'An Introductory Survey of the Sources and Literature of Scots Law', by various authors with an Introduction by the Rt. Hon. Lord Macmillan, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Stair Society Publications, Edinburgh, 1936, printed by Robert Maclehose & Co., Vol. I., p. 112-114. The Office of Hereditary Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse is one of the great Offices of the Royal Household in Scotland and is held by the Duke of Hamilton; it is a Lordship of Regality which is acknowledged to exist today. The current (2012) Baillie of Holyroodhouse is John Scott Moncrieff of Murray Beith Murray, Edinburgh. See 'A treatise on the history, law, and privileges of the palace and sanctuary of Holyroodhouse' by Peter Halkerston (1831), p. 11 etc., for more information.

With regard to the power of earls and lords of regality to grant arms, it would be nonsensical if an earl or lord of regality could nobilitate (e.g. make a baron) but not grant marks of nobility (i.e. arms) at the same time. Since arms are the means by which nobility is 'known' ('nobilis') it follows that a right to nobilitate must necessarily imply a right to grant arms. A careful reading of the Acts of Parliament of 1592 and 1672 establishing the powers and duties of the Lord Lyon reveals that the 1592 Act conferred the power to visit (i.e. examine) the arms of noblemen, barons and gentlemen, to distinguish (i.e. to grant marks of difference to cadet branches) and to matriculate (i.e. record) arms, to inhibit common sort of people from bearing arms and to impose penalties on those who contravene the Act. There is nothing here that prevents an earl or lord of regality from exercising an existing right to grant arms, which says that arms already granted by such people before that date were not valid or which says that such a right cannot be exercised in the future. The 1672 Act provides that everyone who uses arms should submit an account of their arms with evidence confirming their right to the arms, gives the Lord Lyon the power to grant arms to virtuous and well-deserving people (but this does not necessarily exclude others from doing the same), to furnish extracts of registered arms (i.e. provide official copies of entries in the register) and to impose or remit penalties for the unauthorised use of arms (but this does not means that arms authorised by others are unlawful). The Act also says that the Lyon's register will be the true and unrepealable rule of all arms and bearings in Scotland but this does not of itself prevent arms granted otherwise than by the Lord Lyon from being recorded in the register. In other words, there is nothing in either of these Acts which gives the Lord Lyon the exclusive right to grant arms or which deprives those who had that right from exercising it in the future. It is true that Sir Thomas Innes of Learney in his 'Scots Heraldry' (2nd ed., p. 83) quotes the case of Macdonell v Macdonald (1826) to the effect that 'a person cannot create arms unto himself' in support of his assertion that the 'the granting of arms is part of the Royal Prerogative committed to the Kings of Arms' but the fact that a person cannot assume arms does not exclude an earl or lord of regality from granting arms. Note that even today some nobles still appoint their own pursuivants, such as the Finlaggan Pursuivant to the Baron Macdonald of Sleat, the Slains Pursuivant to the Earl of Erroll, the Garioch Pursuivant to the Countess of Mar and the Endure Pursuivant to the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, although these pursuivants do not grant arms (See 'Complete Peerage', vol. XI, app. C, 'Heralds of the Nobility' for further information). Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, former Lord Lyon King of Arms, says in his 'The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland' (P.S.A.S, Vol. LXXIX, p.117, n. 2) that in Scotland 'the Crown was not the "sole" Fountain of Honour'.

One important point about regalities is that a lord of regality could be given regality powers over a barony which he did not own. Peter McIntyre states ('An Introduction to Scottish Legal History', Stair Society, 1958, p. 378) that ‘Like the barony, the regality was an impartible hereditament. The regality was a superior jurisdiction to the barony and the lord of regality might be given regalian rights over a barony which he did not hold. The barons within the regality retained baronial jurisdiction, and the lord of regality exercised his higher regality jurisdiction over the lands of baronies within his regality. Over lands included within the erection and not part of an existing barony the lord of regality had complete shrieval jurisdiction, that is, baronial and regality jurisdiction. Hence lands were frequently erected in liberam baroniam et regalitatem.’ This proves that lands within a regality could be held of the King. With an ordinary barony, if lands were disposed of to be held by the purchaser of the King, then those lands were disjoined from the barony and came within the jurisdiction of the Sheriff. This was done via a 'charter by progress', where the lands were resigned into the hands of the King and then re-granted by the King to the new vassal to be held of the king by that vassal. This is to be contrasted with a 'feu charter' whereby the purchaser became a vassal of the seller (a superiority was created). This did not hold true of lands within regalities which remained part of the regality even if disposed of by the lord of regality to be held of the King; the lord of the regality still exercised regality jurisdiction over such lands. Thus, when the lands of Nether Mordington were disposed of by the Earl of Morton (Lord of the Regality of Dalkeith) in 1636, those lands were specifically dissolved from the Regality of Dalkeith (though, of course, because the Barony of Mordington was a barony held in regality before it was incorporated into the Regality of Dalkeith, what was dissolved from that Regality in 1636 was what had been originally incorporated into that regality; a barony held in regality). If the lands had not been specifically dissolved from the regality then they would have remained part of it. Lord Bankton states ('An Institute of the Laws of Scotland', II, III, 93) that 'If the Lord of Regality disponed certain of the lands, tho' to be holden of the crown, they were not exempted from the regality jurisdiction, unless it was specially expressed; or the lands conveyed jure regalitatis, whereas such disposition would disjoin the lands from a barony, as is above observed'. That this is so is also proved by the current arrangements concerning 'bona vacantia' in the Duchy of Lancaster. The right of 'bona vacantia' (basically the right to the assets of intestate estates or dissolved companies without identifiable owners) extends over all the lands comprising the Country Palatine (or rather Honour) of Lancaster even though the majority of those lands are not actually owned by the Duchy of Lancaster, which extends to some 19,000 hectares. The fact that the Duchy exercises the right of 'bona vacantia' proves (1) that palatine powers (at least those not expressly removed by legislation) still exist within England and (2) that those palatine powers extend over the original extent of the palatinate and are not restricted only to those lands actually owned by the lord of the palatinate. In other words, when lands were sold by the Duke of Lancaster they remained within the palatinate. The Duchy of Lancaster receives several million pounds a year from 'bona vacantia'.

The Treaty of Union 1707 and its effect on subsequent Acts of Parliament

The Treaty of Union 1707 (which united England and Scotland under one crown and parliament, though they retained separate legal systems and established churches) contains some important provisions as follows:

Article 20: 'That all heritable Offices, Superiorities, heritable Jurisdictions [which includes baronies and lordships of regality], Offices for life, and Jurisdictions for life, be reserved to the Owners thereof, as Rights of Property, in the same manner as they are now enjoyed by the Laws of Scotland, notwithstanding of this Treaty.' This clause is still in effect (or has not purportedly been repealed - see below). Note that there is no provision to amend or alter this article.

Article 22: 'That by virtue of this Treaty, Of the Peers of Scotland at the time of the Union 16 shall be the number to Sit and Vote in the House of Lords, and 45 the number of the Representatives of Scotland in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain; And that when Her Majesty Her Heirs or Successors, shall Declare Her or their pleasure for holding the first or any subsequent Parliament of Great Britain until the Parliament of Great Britain shall make further provision therein, A Writ do issue under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, Directed to the Privy Council of Scotland, Commanding them to Cause 16 Peers, who are to sit in the House of Lords to be Summoned to Parliament and 45 Members to be Elected to sit in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain according to the Agreement in the Treaty, in such manner as by a subsequent Act of this present Session of the Parliament of Scotland shall be settled; Which Act is hereby Declared to be as valid as if it were a part of and ingrossed in this Treaty...'

Article 23: ' [1] That the foresaid 16 Peers of Scotland, mentioned in the last preceding Article, to sit in the House of Lords of the Parliament of Great Britain shall have all Priviledges of Parliament which the Peers of England now have, and which They or any Peers of Great Britain shall have after the Union, and particularly the Right of sitting upon the tryals of Peers: And in case of the tryal of any Peer in time of Adjournment or Prorogation of Parliament, the said 16 Peers shall be summoned in the same manner, and have the same powers and priviledges at such tryal, as any other Peers of Great Britain; And that in case any tryals of Peers shall hereafter happen when there is no Parliament in being, the 16 Peers of Scotland who sate in the last preceeding Parliament, shall be summoned in the same manner and have the same powers and privileges at such tryals as any other Peers of Great Britain; and [2] that all Peers of Scotland, and their successors to their Honours and Dignities, shall from and after the Union be Peers of Great Britain, and have Rank and Precedency next and immediately after the Peers of the like orders and degrees in England at the time of the Union, and before all Peers of Great Britain of the like orders and degrees, who may be Created after the Union, and shall be tryed as Peers of Great Britain, and shall Enjoy all Privileges of Peers, as fully as the Peers of England do now, or as they, or any other Peers of Great Britain may hereafter Enjoy the same except the Right and Privilege of sitting in the House of Lords and the Privileges depending thereon, and particularly the Right of sitting upon the tryals of Peers.' The first part of article 23 was (apparently - see below) repealed by the Peerage Act 1963, which gave all the peers of Scotland the right to sit in the House of Lords (thereby replacing the system of elected representative peers established under articles 22 and 23).

Article 25: 'That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall from and after the Union cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms.' This clause is still in effect (or has not purportedly been repealed - see below). The interesting question about this article is whether it only relates to laws in existence at the time or whether it covers laws enacted after the Union. The statement would seem to imply that the article only relates to the former, so that the new Parliament of Great Britain (now of the UK) could enact laws inconsistent with articles of the Treaty - but this would literally make the Treaty meaningless. What is the point in agreeing a treaty provision which makes an existing law void but which allows that same law to be re-enacted one day after it had been declared void in accordance with the Treaty? No, the only possible meaning of article 25 is that it renders void all laws in existence at the time that were incompatible with the Treaty and prevents their re-enactment. In addition, any new law passed after the Union, not being a re-enactment, which was inconsistent with the treaty would also be void - but such laws would be void as contrary to a specific provision of the treaty in any event (i.e. even without a general saving clause). The overall effect therefore is that any law that is incompatible with the treaty is void, whether it was passed before or after the Treaty. This includes, for instance, the privileges of peers. When the Treaty says that the peers of Scotland are to enjoy the privileges of peers it means the privileges of peers as they were at the time of the Treaty, so that any law passed after 1707 which purports to alter those privileges is void as contrary to the Treaty, subject to any amendment expressly allowed by the Treaty.

1. The combined effect of articles 20 and 25 is that the Heritable Jurisdictions Act 1747 (which limited baronial jurisdiction, mainly by abolishing the right to impose the death penalty) and the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (which abolished baronial jurisdiction entirely) were unlawful and therefore void as contrary to article 20. Note also that article 20 preserves heritable jurisdictions as 'rights of property' so the separation of baronies from the land under the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 was void in this respect also.
2. The combined effect of articles 22, 23 and 25 is that the Peerage Act 1963 (which gave all Scottish peers the right to sit in the House of Lords) and the House of Lords Act 1999 (which abolished the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords) are void and of no effect to the extent that they are incompatible with the Treaty of Union.

One thing to bear in mind is that the Treaty of Union was ratified by the Parliaments of both countries; in other words that laws were enacted in both countries implementing the treaty, so it is important to distinguish between the treaty and the consequential laws enacted in both countries implementing the treaty (The Union with England Act 1706 in Scotland and the Union with Scotland Act 1706 in England). The critical point is that it is the Treaty which is binding between the two countries and even if the Parliament is supreme and cannot bind its successors (which would mean that Parliament has the power to repeal any provision of any domestic law, including the Acts of Union), Parliament does NOT have the power to unilaterally amend an international treaty governed by international law (at least not without the potential effect of rendering the treaty void). For instance, Parliament could repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, which implements the European Convention of Human Rights in the UK, but it cannot repeal the European Convention on Human Rights. It follows that if Parliament cannot repeal the provisions of the Treaty (otherwise than as allowed by the Treaty itself) and if it does so (or purports to do so) then the Treaty becomes void and ceases to bind the parties. This matter is explained more fully in an article of June 2007 by David M Walker, Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow 1958-1990, in The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland, 'The Union and the Law'. As he says in that article 'In his judgment in McCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 Lord President Cooper, admittedly obiter, observed that the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament was a distinctively English principle which had no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. In particular the Lord Advocate had conceded in that case that the Parliament of Great Britain could not repeal or alter fundamental and essential conditions of the Treaty and associated legislation' which means that the unalterable nature of the Treaty has been acknowledged by the principal law officer of the Crown in Scotland.

Note that the British government still holds that the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, by which Spain ceded Gibraltar to Great Britain, is binding in law. See the statement made in the House of Commons on 27 March 2006 by the then Secretry of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that 'I will note that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, Gibraltar's right of self determination is not constrained by the Treaty of Utrecht except in so far as Article X gives Spain the right of refusal should Britain ever renounce Sovereignty. Thus independence would only be an option with Spanish consent.' If the rights of the United Kingdom with respect to Gibraltar are constrained by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, then are not the rights of the United Kingdom with respect to Scotland also constrained by the Treay of Union of 1707? Either such treaties are binding in law or they are not. Which is it?

A possible argument is that since an international treaty is a treaty between two or more countries and since both countries ceased to exist (being united into one country by the treaty) the treaty simply ceased to exist when the parties to it ceased to exist as countries. In the first place, this cannot have been the intention of the parties (Why agree binding treaty terms which will cease to be binding the moment the treaty comes into effect?) and, in the second place, although the countries were united under one crown and parliament they continued to exist as separate countries with separate legal systems and separate established churches and, as is stated in article 22, the Scottish peers and Members of Parliament sat in parliament as REPRESENTATIVES of Scotland (the MPs are specifically referred to in article 22 as 'representatives of Scotland' and the peers were always known as 'representative peers'). These peers and MPs cannot have represented a country that didn't exist, so Scotland must have continued to exist as a separate country after the union with its own legal system, its own established church and its own REPRESENTATIVES in parliament (Scotland also continued to exist as a physical place of course and the people of Scotland continued to be Scots - in spite of a failed attempt to rename Scotland to 'North Britain'). In other words, both countries continued to exist as separate countries after the union and the treaty cannot be said to have 'vanished into thin air' on the basis that they didn't.

Further, with regard to the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament it is noticeable that when courts make judgments on the matter they invariably do so largely on the authority of A. V. Dicey's 'An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution' (1885) or previous cases which do the same. What this means, in effect, is that judges say that the fact that they approve of an opinion makes that opinion law. This is, of course, complete nonsense; it is a self-referencing argument ('It is law because I say it is law.') and only parliament has the power to turn its opinions into laws. In other words, if Parliament is supreme then only parliament can define its own powers, including its own supremacy, which it hasn't done (otherwise judges would not need to refer to Dicey in the first place), and the fact that Parliament has passed a law which contravenes, say, the Treaty of Union, is not, in itself, proof that it had the legal power to do so (this is also a self-referencing argument along the lines of 'The fact that we did something proves that we had the legal right to do that thing.' No it doesn't.). And so the argument comes round to where it started. Neither the opinions of writers nor the opinions of judges nor the actions of parliament are sufficient to legitimize the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament, except that any action of parliament that expressly limits the power of parliament, such as the Treaty of Union, makes it clear that, at that time at least, parliament believed it could limit its own powers in such a way; that is, permanently. If parliament clearly believed that it could limit its own powers then on what basis can a writer or judge contradict it or assert that the situation has changed since that time - in the absence of any express act of parliament? It is clear that the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament is a judicial invention; a house of cards resting on no authority other than the opinions of judges of the opinions of writers (it certainly isn't based on any express law); not a sound basis for a fundamental constitutional law.

So, if parliament is not supreme then who is? The logical answer is the people. If the people, through their representatives, agree to limit the power of those representatives then the people, being supreme, can do so. Being supreme, the people can, through their representatives, undo that limitation, but what they cannot do is to agree with another body of people, such as the Scots, to form a new joint community on the basis of agreed limitations on the powers of their respective representatives and then use the fact that they are a majority in that new community to ignore those limitations, at least not without asking the other body of people for their consent to such a step - unless the other body of people has agreed a mechanism for amending the agreement without such consent. This is not only fair and democratic but it is legally sound; all other options are either unfair, undemocratic or legally unsound (and probably all three) and require the sort of jiggery-pokery that judges have used to develop the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The option is also practical since the representatives of that other body (i.e. Scottish MPs and peers in this case) and that other body (i.e. the Scots) are (or were) there to be asked.

In the judgment in McCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 Lord President Cooper stated 'Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provisions shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect.' (as quoted in Hansard 27 Jul 1999, Column 1422).

See also Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, a House of Lords case binding on all lower courts, where reference was made to Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe [1965] AC 172 where the Privy Council stated at p. 197-8: 'A legislature has no power to ignore the conditions of law-making that are imposed by the instrument which itself regulates its power to make law. This restriction exists independently of the question whether the legislature is sovereign, as is the legislature of Ceylon, or whether the constitution is 'uncontrolled,' as the board [in McCawley'scase [1920] AC 691] held the constitution of Queensland to be. Such a constitution can, indeed, be altered or amended by the legislature, if the regulating instrument so provides and if the terms of those provisions are complied with: and the alteration or amendment may include the change or abolition of those very provisions. But the proposition which is not acceptable is that a legislature, once established, has some inherent power derived from the mere fact of its establishment to make a valid law by the resolution of a bare majority which its own constituent instrument has said shall not be a valid law unless made by a different type of majority or by a different legislative process.'

See also Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 at 106 and 107 where Lord Hope of Craighead said: 'It has been suggested that some of the provisions of the Acts of Union of 1707 are so fundamental that they lie beyond Parliament's power to legislate. Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v Lord Advocate, 1953 SC 396, 411, 412 reserved his opinion on the question whether the provisions in article XIX of the Treaty of Union which purport to preserve the Court of Session and the laws relating to private right which are administered in Scotland are fundamental law which Parliament is not free to alter. Nevertheless by expressing himself as he did he went further than Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, 10th ed (1959), p 82 was prepared to go when he said simply that it would be rash of Parliament to abolish Scots law courts and assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England. In Gibson v Lord Advocate, 1975 SC 136, 144, Lord Keith too reserved his opinion on this question and as to the justiciability of legislation purporting to abolish the Church of Scotland. In Pringle, Petitioner, 1991 SLT 330, the First Division of the Court of Session again reserved its position on the effect of the Treaty of Union in a case which had been brought to challenge legislation which introduced the community charge in Scotland before it was introduced in England. But even Dicey himself was prepared to recognise that the statesmen of 1707 believed in the possibility of creating an absolutely sovereign legislature which should yet be bound by unalterable laws: Thoughts on the Scottish Union, pp 252-253, quoted by Lord President Cooper in MacCormick at p 412. So here too it may be said that the concept of a Parliament that is absolutely sovereign is not entirely in accord with the reality. Nor should we overlook the fact that one of the guiding principles that were identified by Dicey at p 35 was the universal rule or supremacy throughout the constitution of ordinary law. Owen Dixon, "The Law and Constitution" (1935) 51 LQR 590, 596 was making the same point when he said that it is of the essence of supremacy of the law that the courts shall disregard as unauthorised and void the acts of any organ of government, whether legislative or administrative, which exceed the limits of the power that organ derives from the law. In its modern form, now reinforced by the European Convention on Human Rights and the enactment by Parliament of the Human Rights Act 1998, this principle protects the individual from arbitrary government. The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based. The fact that your Lordships have been willing to hear this appeal and to give judgment upon it is another indication that the courts have a part to play in defining the limits of Parliament's legislative sovereignty.' See also AXA General Insurance Ltd & Ors v. The Scottish Ministers & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSIH 31 at 62 et seq.

In Whaley v Lord Watson 2000 SC 340 Lord Prosser said at pp. 357-8: 'If and in so far as a parliament may have powers which are not limited by any kind of legal definition, there is no doubt scope for concepts of 'sovereignty', with the courts unable to enforce boundaries which do not exist. But if and in so far as a parliament and its powers have been defined, and thus limited, by law, it is in my opinion self-evident that the courts have jurisdiction in relation to these legal definitions and limits, just as they would have for any other body created by law.'

The binding nature of international treaties as fundamental and unalterable laws in situations where two countries merge or where two peoples agree to live together in one country is illustrated by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29/11/1947 concerning Palestine. This stated that 'The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.' The nature of such treaties is therefore quite clear and, more importantly, internationally acknowledged; they become fundamental and unalterable (i.e. constitutional) laws of the new state and, to that extent, limit the sovereignty of the government of that country, whatever its democratic mandate (which is not to say that such laws cannot be altered but this can only be done with the specific consent of the original parties to the treaty, in so far as they remain identifiable (e.g. Scots and English or Jewish and Arab). Since the whole purpose of such agreements is to protect minority rights, it is a nonsense to allow the majority to negate such agreements simply because they are the majority (which is what the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament effectively does). Only if one of the parties no longer exists or is no longer identifiable would such action be justified, which is not the case in the United Kingdom.

Regardless of the above arguments concerning the supremacy of parliament, the current international law on treaties (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Article 46) holds that an internal law (such as the supremacy of parliament) cannot be used to circumvent a treaty unless (1) the violation of that internal law was manifest at the time of signing and (2) the internal law is fundamental. While the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament is fundamental, it was clearly not manifest at the time because the English parliament held itself out as being able to bind itself permanently by the Treaty of Union and the Scottish parliament believed that to be the case (see below re the view of the Scottish parliament at the time) and that is because the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament was not developed until long after the Treaty of Union. While the Vienna Convention is not retrospective, it can be taken as a clear guide to international law before it came into effect. In short, a country cannot use an internal law or doctrine existing at the time of signing to circumvent a treaty (subject to the exception above) or 'develop' an internal law or doctrine after a treaty has been signed and then use that law or doctrine to circumvent the treaty. If this was not the case then treaties would not be worth the paper they are written on because they could simply be circumvented by saying 'Oh, we've developed this internal law. Sorry.' It's 'odd' that the three law lords referred to below did not identify this point when considering the House of Lords Act 1999 - but perhaps they didn't notice the word 'Treaty' in 'Treaty of Union'. On the other hand, if the English Parliament was not bound by the Treaty of Union by virtue of the supremacy of parliament then it certainly misled the Scottish Parliament into thinking that it could agree to binding and unalterable treaty terms. In this case the treaty would be void for fraud (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Article 49).

But the real issue concerning the supremacy of parliament is this. Constitutional laws are laws of the state that are fundamental and unalterable (except by using special constitutional procedures such as requiring a 75% majority to change them) and they are generally used to protect the fundamental (i.e. basic and essential) rights of the citizen against possible (or rather inevitable) incursion by an over-mighty state; rights like the right of free speech, the right to privacy and the right not to be deprived of your liberty without due process of law. Many countries have constitutions and almost all of these are written; in fact the United Kingdom is the only country that I am aware of that has (or it is claimed has) no written constitution. But if there is no written constitution and parliament is supreme then you have no constitution at all; all you have is, by definition, a set of laws, customs and procedures which can be over-ridden by parliament at will. But if other countries can have binding, unalterable written constitutions (as we know they can) then what is it that prevents the United Kingdom from having a binding, unalterable written constitution? Answer? Nothing at all. We cannot be the only country in the world that is incapable of protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens in this way. After all, all other countries accept that it is possible to have laws that are fundamental and unalterable, so why are we different? Well, we aren't of course. Having accepted that we can have constitutional laws the next questions is 'Do we have any?' In other words, do we have any laws that limit the power of parliament to do what it likes? Of course we do; at the very least we have the Treaty of Union and the associated Acts of Union, as well as things like Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. So the argument is this - in 1707 England and Scotland had the capability to create constitutional laws like any other country, as we have just shown; they agreed such laws fully intending them, and making it clear that they fully intended them, to be unalterable laws that limited the powers of the newly-created Parliament of Great Britain. These two parliaments had the capability to make such laws and they did make such laws. On what basis therefore can a court of law say that these parliaments did not have the power to do what they undeniably did (the words of the treaty are quite clear)? It amounts to the courts saying that we, the people of the United Kingdom, are unique amongst the nations of the earth in being incapabale of being protected by constitutional laws - and this is even portrayed as being somehow a strength of our 'democratic system'. Are the courts in this country somehow under the impression that the US Constitution leads to some sort of democratic deficiency? On the contrary, the absence of constitutional laws is the direct result of a tacit agreement between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary to deprive the people of their rights. Have you noticed what has happened to the right to trial by jury in recent years? How much more restricted in has become? And what about the right to bear arms that is enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1688? Gone in a puff of smoke. Today, if you are caught in public with a blade more than 3 inches long you will be taken off to jail so fast your feet won't touch the ground. They have reduced you to a little animal that Robert Burns, the national poet of Scotland, would certainly have recognized; a 'wee, sleekit, timorous, cowering beastie' (a mouse) - and that, my friends, is just the way they like it. The Bill of Rights of 1688 is trumpeted as being the cornerstone of British democracy. It would have been it if had been a constitutional law (i.e. unalterable) but how much of a 'cornerstone of democracy' is a law that can be quietly dismantled without you even noticing it? Quite.

Were feudal barons peers?

But what was the status of feudal barons and lords of regality (who were feudal barons of a higher type) at the time of the Treaty of Union 1707? Were they peers? It is clear that feudal barons were the original peers of Scotland, as tenants in chief of the king, and that they sat in parliament by virtue of being feudal barons, as did the earls (who also held their lands 'by barony'). This is a simple historical fact and Bankton (above) confirms that all feudal barons were Lords of Parliament. Feudal barons retained their right to sit in the Scottish Parliament as peers but by an Act of Parliament of 1428 (which was never implemented) and a declaration of King James VI of 1587 implementing the Act of 1428 they were allowed to appoint representatives (Commissioners) in each sheriffdom to represent them; they could still attend in person if they so wished*. This right (and duty - from which barons were only exempted on the condition that they appointed Commissioners) did not fall into desuetude (disuse), as some have argued (Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, 'Scots Heraldry', 2nd Ed., 1956, p. 130**), because under Scots law an act of parliament cannot fall into desuetude by mere non-usage, even for the greatest length of time, in the absence of some 'positive act showing the intention of the community to repeal it by contrary practice' (William Bell, 'A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland', Edinburgh, 1838, p. 298) and no-one has identified such a positive act before 1707 (not doing something is not a positive act of course). In addition, the right to sit in parliament was both a private right and a public duty (the baron represented the land of his barony in parliament) but even if only a private right could only have been lost by negative prescription (i.e. non-use) if the right was one in which two parties were directy interested, so that while one party lost a right the other gained immunity from it, but where a right concerns 'the privileged person only, without directly affecting others, or, in other words, when it is what is termed res mera facultatis, no lapse of time can diminish or take away the right' (Lord Daer v The Hon. Keith Stewart and Other Freeholders of the County of Wigton, Court of Session, 1792. See also Lord Kames 'Elucidations' and Erskine, Book I, Tit. I, Sec. 46). Furthermore, Lord Corehouse, in McDonnell of Glengarry v Duke of Gordon, Feb. 26, 1828 (6 S. & D. 600.), said: 'If there be a principle well settled in the law of Scotland, it is this - that the right of ownership in a feudal subject, being complete, cannot suffer the negative prescription ...'. This case concerned the right of patronage of a particular church (i.e. the right to appoint the minister of the church) so it relates to a right arising out of ownership of land. In addition, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney refers ('The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland', P.S.A.S, Vol. LXXIX, p. 144) to the case of Sundry Barons v. Lord Lyon (1672) ('Brown's Supplement', Vol. III, p. 6) where those sundry barons 'successfully maintained, in claiming their supporters, that they were as good Barons after that Act (1587) as before'. In 1599 (i.e. after the Act of 1587) James VI (and I of England) wrote of the feudal barons in his 'Basilikon Doron' (Book II) that 'the small barons are but an inferior part of the Nobilitie and of their estate'. If a feudal baron was a member of the nobility and of the same Estate in Parliament (the Estate of the Nobility) and had the right to sit and vote in Parliament as a member of that Estate and was a Lord of Parliament (according to Bankton) and never ceased to be such (according to Sir George Mackenzie), on what basis can it be asserted that a feudal baron was not a peer? Even exclusion from the Union Roll, the official list, is not enough, because if two people demonstrably have the same rights (to sit and vote in Parliament as nobles) then, de facto and de jure (because the de facto act of sitting follows the acknowledged de jure right to sit), they are of the same class and must be treated accordingly. Interestingly, the Dukedom of Rothesay was excluded from the Union Roll in 1707 but this did not prevent that peerage (which was and is a feudal barony) being included in the roll of Scottish peers in 1714. You will appreciate that the right of the 'greater barons' to receive an individual summons, which was the only difference between them and the 'small barons', makes no difference because the underlying right (to sit and vote as a noble) is the same; it is just the method of being called to exercise that right that is different. It is the substance that matters, not the form. The same applies to being expressly created a 'Lord of Parliament' because being so created only gave the right to what? The right to an individual summons. This is just a circular argument; a person is a 'Lord of Parliament' because he has the right to an individual summons, but he only has the right to an individual summons because he is a 'Lord of Parliament'. The real issue is what it is that the right to an individual summons gives him a right to do, which is to sit and vote in Parliament as a noble - and the feudal barons also had that right.

*'Statute 1587, cap. 120, was a relieving and not a disabling Act' (Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, 'Scots Heraldry', 2nd Ed., 1956, p. 131). Sir George Mackenzie ('Science of Heraldry', Chap. XXXI) as quoted by Seton ('The Law and Practice of Heraldry in Scotland', p. 294) states that barons 'were members of Parliament with us, as such, and never lost that privilege, though, for their conveniency, they were allowed to be represented by two of their number (in each shire)'.

**You will appreciate that the fact that Sir Thomas Innes of Learney (Lord Lyon 1945-69) argued that the right to attend Parliament had fallen into desuetude after 1633 (45 years after 1587) meant that he acknowledged that the right to attend Parliament was not abolished by the Act of 1587 and still existed after 1587 (because it cannot have fallen into desuetude in 1633 if abolished by an Act of Parliament in 1587). Thus the Lord Lyon, a judge in the Scottish legal system, has acknowledged that the 1587 Act did not remove the right of feudal barons to sit in Parliament as peers; the issue is solely whether that right was lost through non-use (which it clearly wasn't, as shown above).

As an example, a list of the 'nobilmen' attending the parliament of 1/3/1478 includes the following feudal barons: Stobhall, Tullibairdin, Elliotstoun, Halkestone and Restalrige - all of whom are designated as 'Dominus de...' (i.e. 'Lord of...') (Carmichael J A, 'Various Tracts concerning the Peerage of Scotland', Edinburgh, 1791, p. 58). The lists for 4/10/1479 and 13/4/1481 includes Lords of Parliament and feudal barons under the heading 'Lords' (pp. 61 & 63), although forming separate groups. In 1456 certain persons were selected to administer justice in a time of pestilence; these included, for example, the 'barones' Lord Lindsay of the Byres (a Lordship of Parliament created in 1444), the 'Laird of Murthlie' (a feudal barony) and the 'Constable of Dundee' (a feudal barony). This shows that there was no distinction, as barons, between Lords of Parliament and feudal barons.

The position was the same in England. Sergeant Dodderidge in the Abergavenny case of 1605 said: 'And although there may be conceived this difference last mentioned between Baron by tenure or Writ, and the Baron by Patent, yet they being all members of the higher house of Parliament, they are hereby equally made Noble, and Peeres of the Realme, as they are Barons only, without any distinction that I have observed' (quoted in Gadd, 'Peerage Law', ISCA Publishing Ltd., Bristol, 1985, p. 18). Gadd also confirms that peerages were originally annexed to land: 'the dignities of the peerage having been originally annexed to lands were considered as tenements or incorporeal hereditaments wherein a person might have a real estate; and although dignities are now become little more than personal honours and rights yet they are classed under the head of real property.' (Earl of Cowley v Countess of Cowley [1901] App. Cas. 450 as quoted in Gadd, 'Peerage Law', ISCA Publishing Ltd., Bristol, 1985, p. 14). In addition, Gadd says that in modern usage a peerage is "that dignity of nobility to which attaches the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords" (p. 2). Clearly it is the right to sit and vote as a noble that matters, not the method of summons or the method by which the peerage was created (tenure, writ or patent). Of course, in Scotland there was no House of Lords and the three estates (clergy, nobility and the burghs) all sat in the one place; so in Scotland it was the right to sit and vote in Parliament as a member of the nobility that mattered.

Thus feudal barons were peers of Scotland at the time of the Union in 1707 (since they had the right to attend the Parliament of Scotland as peers at that time) and as such they became peers of Great Britain under article 23 of the Treaty. They remain peers of Great Britain to this day with a right to elect representative peers to sit in the House of Lords because the House of Lords Act 1999 was void with respect to their rights under Articles 22 and 23 of the Treaty. It is worth noting, in this context, that in a memorandum by the then Lord Advocate, the senior law officer of the Crown in Scotland, which appeared at Appendix 12 of a Report of a Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform in 1962 he observed (and in relation to the right of Scottish peers to resign their honours to the King for re-grant to a new series of heirs): 'On the whole I am of the opinion that the pre-Union procedure [i.e. law] has never been abrogated and is still legally competent' (Sir Malcolm Innes of Edingight, Lord Lyon 1981-2001, 'Peers and Heirs', Scottish Genealogist, Sept. 1995, p. 99). This makes it clear that a pre-Union law of Scotland remains in force until specifically abrogated.

There are at least three pre-1587 Scottish feudal baronies which are recognized as peerages today.

The first is the Earldom of Sutherland ('Complete Peerage', Vol. XII, Part I, p. 546, 548, 549, 553 etc.), there never having been a grant of a personal title of that name (in the case of other feudal earldoms personal titles were granted, so the earl held two earldoms of the same name, one feudal, the original earldom, and one personal). The question is 'If the Earldom of Sutherland is recognized as a peerage by virtue of being a feudal barony (and it cannot be by virtue of being anything else) then why are not all other feudal baronies so recognized?'

The second is the Barony of Torphichen ('Complete Peerage', Vol. XII, Part I, p. 776), where there has also never been a grant of a personal title.

The third, and most significant, is the Dukedom of Rothesay, which, under an Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1469 (RPS, A1469/2), is automatically held by the heir to the throne (if male, the title being restricted to 'princes') from birth or from the accession of his mother or father to the throne. As the 'Complete Peerage' states (2nd Ed., vol. XI, p. 208, n. b) this peerage 'must have been of a feudal or territorial kind' (see also vol. III, p.444, n. c). There have been subsequent creations of personal peerage titles of this name (Carmichael J A, 'Various Tracts concerning the Peerage of Scotland', Edinburgh, 1791, p. 137-9) but these were for life only (no succession to the dukedom being specified in each case) and so they either merged with the crown on succession or became extinct on the death of the grantee if he died before succeeding to the crown. The feudal Dukedom of Rothesay was held in regality ('Complete Peerage', 2nd Ed., vol. XI, p. 209, n. b and Grant, Alexander, 'Franchises North of the Border', pp. 37, 41) and, interestingly, this means that the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Rothesay, has more power than the monarch, being able to hold courts and grant titles (something the monarch only does today on the recommendation of the government, with the exception of certain orders such as the Royal Victorian Order), as stated above. The fact that the Dukedom of Rothesay is a feudal barony means that it does not merge with the crown (as a personal peerage title would), as stated erroneously in the 'Complete Peerage' (vol. XI, p. 209 for example); this is because if a feudal barony falls into the hands of the crown it, being impartible and indestructible, retains its separate identity, as stated above. Professor William Croft Dickinson states ('The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath 1523-1542', p. xxxvi) that 'even when a barony fell into the King's hands, it still preserved its identity´ and that the barony rested in the Crown 'distinct and unmerged'.

Put simply, if these three Scottish feudal baronies are peerages then so are all other Scottish feudal baronies. Consider this. What if the Earl of Sutherland and Lord Torphichen had been excluded from the Union Roll (list of peers at the time of the Union) and had objected to their exclusion because they claimed to be peers? On what basis would their right to be recognized as peers have been assessed? Clearly, on the basis that they had the right to sit in the Parliament of Scotland as nobles. Once this criteria is established, any person who met that criteria at that time must in law be recognised as a peer - and it is the legal right to be recognized as a peer, and only that legal right, that is relevant. J. F. Riddell, in his 'Inquiry into the Law and Practice in Scottish Peerages' (Edinburgh, 1862, Vol. I, p. 92) says 'The Peerage [of Torphichen], therefore, from the above statement [Acts of Parliament, Vol. V, pp. 102-5 (1636)], taken along with our legal doctrine and practice and applicando singula singulis, was clearly vested in the principal superiority and messuage, or castle of the barony of Torphichen, (including the site) within the "mean" or middle "portion" of the inheritance in Linlithgowshire, and Torphichen proper, where it is correctly affirmed to "subsist". In other words, the feudal barony of Torphichen is a peerage and that peerage is attached to and passes with the principal messuage ('caput' or legal head) of the barony. See also the case of Somerville which was undoubtedly a feudal barony because the 7th Lord Somerville lost his peerage when he alienated his estates ('Complete Peerage', 2nd ed., vol. 12a, p. 100, n. f) but his descendant, James Somerville of Drum (d 1765), was admitted to the roll of peers in 1723 ('Complete Peerage', 2nd ed., vol. 12a, p. 104). See also the case of Ochiltree where Sir James Stewart of Killieth (d c 1659), 'having bought from his cousin the lands of Ochiltree, and acquired his Barony by resignation with consent of the Crown, 27 May 1615, as stated above, was confirmed in the same by a charter under the Great Seal 9 June 1615, and thus was held to have become LORD OCHILTREE ('Complete Peerage', 2nd ed., vol. 10, p. 7). Although this charter was declared to be invalid in 1793 for technical reasons it proves that the peerage was a feudal barony because it would have been a peerage but for the technicality. See also Alexander Grant, 'The Development of the Scottish Peerage', The Scottish Historical Review, Vol. 57, No. 163, Part 1 (Apr., 1978), p. 16, where it is stated that the peerages of Hamilton, Keith, Lorne and Avandale (Stewart of Avandale in the Complete Peerage) were also feudal baronies; the last two peerages also being lost to purchasers when the lands were sold. The fact that other feudal baronies have not been formally recognized as peerages since 1707 (i.e. for over 300 years) is no obstacle because a number of peerages have been recognized after longer periods, including the English baronies by writ of Camoys (recognized in 1839 after 413 years), Fauconberg (recognized in 1903 after 440 years) Strabolgi (recognized in 1916 after 547 years) and Botetort (recognized in 1764 after 358 years). The law relating to the recognition of peerages is so strict that a hereditary peerage will be recognized even where a writ of summons to the House of Lords is issued in error, either to the wrong person or in the wrong name (a new peerage of that name is created), which proves that what matters is strict compliance with the law and nothing else (e.g. political expediency). Examples of peerages created in this way are Strange (1628), Powlet of Basing (1717) and Percy (1722). See also 'Barony Title - A Response', Adam Bruce, Journal of the Law Society of Scotland, April 1993, p. 157, which cites authority to the effect that feudal earldoms are peerages (which, of course, begs the question as to why feudal baronies are not also so considered).

Sir William Betham (1779-1853), Ulster King of Arms, in his 'On Palatine Honours in Ireland' (The Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 1850, vol. V, p. 200) stated: 'The noble persons holding these great palatine honours were always considered of the barones regni, and members of the curia regis, to which they were summoned, and might attend whether they were summoned or not; after the king's high court of parliament became a legislative assembly they were called lords, or peers of parliament, a title which grew out of the revolutionary movements which commenced under Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, in the reign of Henry III, and continued at intervals until the parliaments assumed the functions of legislation, and the forms and practice of the present day.'

The House of Lords Act 1999

The question of whether the Treaty of Union of 1707 remains binding was considered by the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords in 1999 before the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999. The issue was whether the Act would contravene article 22 of the Treaty of Union by removing the right of Scottish peers to sit in the House of Lords. The unanimous opinion of the Committee was that it would not, although only the three law lords involved gave their reasons. It is worth considering these reasons briefly. But note, in particular, part of the case for Lord Grey which says (para. 20):

'In respect of the earlier debate on Article III, on 18 November 1706, Defoe records ['History of the Union between England and Scotland', 3rd edtn London, John Stockdale, 1786] that:

"The capital arguments made use of on this occasion . . . were such as these:—

1.  That whatever agreement is now concluded between the two kingdoms, will never be binding to the new Parliament.

2.  That the two kingdoms effectually subject themselves to the new Parliament, all the conditions stipulated on either side to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

To this it was answered, That the British Parliament were absolutely bound up by the stipulations of this treaty; that they being a subsequent power to the two respective Parliaments of either kingdom, had no other or farther power to act than was limited to them by the stipulations of both kingdoms . . . That the Parliament of Britain, being the creature of the Union, formed by express stipulations between the two separate Parliaments of England and Scotland, cannot but be unalterably bound by the conditions so stipulated, and upon which it received its being, name and authority."'

Thus the intention of the Scottish Parliament was made abundantly clear.

Lord Slynn of Hadley's reasons were (1) that the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament means that Parliament has the power to amend or repeal the two Acts (one Scottish and one English, as explained above) and has done so with respect to article 22 in the Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964, which repealed article 22 of the Scottish Act of 1707, and the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993, which repealed article 22 of the English Act of 1706, and (2) that even if a provision of the Treaty (as opposed to the Acts implementing the Treaty) could be regarded as entrenched, article 22 'was not intended, and is not to be read, as fixing for all time a representation of sixteen or any other precise number of peers. It must have been intended that changes could be made with changed times, so long as Scotland was not discriminated against unfairly in comparison with England'. There are two very short answers to these points as follows: (1) that a legislature has no power to ignore the conditions under which it was itself established as a law-making body, as shown above, and (2) that had the Parliaments of Scotland and England wanted to make provision for amendment of article 22 then they could have so done (as they did with other articles of the treaty) and the fact that they did not do so must be taken to prove that they did not intend to do so (this argument is regularly used by judges who say 'If Parliament had wanted to make x rule they would have done so'). In short, Lord Slynn of Hadley turned the normal approach to legislative interpretation on its head ('They could have included provision for amendment, they knew they could, they did so with respect to other articles, they clearly chose not to in this case but we will assume that they intended to allow amendment.').

With regard to interpretation, in Magor and St Mellons v Newport Borough Council [1952] HL it was held that filling in gaps in legislation was a ‘naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin guise of interpretation…if a gap is disclosed the remedy lies in an amending Act’. In other words you do not put in words that aren't there. In Duport Steels Ltd v SIRS [1980] HL Lord Scarman said: ‘In the field of statute law the judge must be obedient to the will of Parliament…Parliament makes…the law: the judge’s duty is to interpret and to apply the law, not to change it to meet the judge’s idea of what justice requires…Unpalatable statute law may not be disregarded or rejected, merely because it is unpalatable... If Parliament says one thing but means another, it is not, under the historic principles of the common law, for the courts to correct it…We are to be governed not by Parliament’s intentions but by Parliament’s enactments’. Lord Diplock said: 'Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral. In controversial matters such as are involved in industrial relations there is room for difference of opinion as to what is expedient, what is just and what is morally justifiable. Under our constitution it is Parliament's opinion on these matters that is paramount.' He added at 157G: 'It endangers continued public confidence in the political impartiality of the judiciary, which is essential to the continuance of the rule of law, if judges, under the guise of interpretation, provide their own preferred amendments to statutes which experience of their operation has shown to have had consequences that members of the court before whom the matter comes consider to be injurious to the public interest.'

In Inco Europe Ltd and Others v. First Choice Distribution (A Firm) and Others [2000] UKHL 15 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said: 'I freely acknowledge that this interpretation of section 18(1)(g) involves reading words into the paragraph. It has long been established that the role of the courts in construing legislation is not confined to resolving ambiguities in statutory language. The court must be able to correct obvious drafting errors. In suitable cases, in discharging its interpretative function the court will add words, or omit words or substitute words. Some notable instances are given in Professor Sir Rupert Cross' admirable opuscule, Statutory Interpretation, 3rd ed., pp. 93-105. He comments, at page 103:

"In omitting or inserting words the judge is not really engaged in a hypothetical reconstruction of the intentions of the drafter or the legislature, but is simply making as much sense as he can of the text of the statutory provision read in its appropriate context and within the limits of the judicial role."

This power is confined to plain cases of drafting mistakes. The courts are ever mindful that their constitutional role in this field is interpretative. They must abstain from any course which might have the appearance of judicial legislation.'

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead's reasons were (1) that article 22, so far as it concerned the peers of Scotland, was repealed by the s.7 Peerage Act 1963, (2) that article 22 was concerned with the composition of the first parliament after union, was bound to become outdated, and change was inevitable, (3) that clear language would be needed before article 22 'could sensibly be interpreted as intended to preclude all change', (4) that Scotland would still be 'represented' in the House of Lords by peers with Scottish connections and Scottish interests (even though they do not actually represent Scotland as such) and that such representation is 'adequate' and (5) that 'What matters is sufficient representation in fact. I do not see how, so long as adequate representation exists, there can be any question of a breach of the Treaty of Union.' There are some very short answers to these points as follows: (1) the fact that article 22 was repealed by the Peerage Act 1963 merely begs the question as to whether that Act was itself legal, a question that Lord Nicholls did not answer, (2) the idea that article 22 only related to the composition of the first parliament is contradicted by the fact that the article refers to the Lords of Parliament of Great Britain (which includes the representative peers of Scotland) taking an oath 'in the first and all succeeding Parliaments of Great Britain' ('until the Parliament of Great Britain shall otherways direct', which is provision for changing the form of oath but not the people who take the oath); the question being how the representative peers of Scotland can take an oath in 'all succeeding Parliaments' if they are excluded from any succeeding parliament, (3) it is not clear language that is needed to exclude change but clear language to allow change, as explained above, (4) the idea that Scotland can be adequately represented by peers who merely have a connection or an interest in Scotland is plain nonsense (Would the UK be happy to be represented at the UN by someone whose only connection to the UK is an 'interest' in the UK? Would that be 'adequate representation'?) and (5) what constitutes 'sufficient representation' was specified in the Treaty of Union and there is no provision for changing the nature of that representation (This is like a judge saying 'Well, he ordered a Rolls Royce but a Mini is quite sufficient for getting him from A to B'.).

Lord Hope of Craighead's reasons were (1) that the the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament means that Parliament has the power to amend or repeal the two Acts (but in Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 at 104 he said 'But Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute.'), (2) that article 22 was not 'fundamental law' (i.e. an article that cannot be changed) because 'it seems unlikely that it was the intention of the Commissioners that the numbers mentioned in the first paragraph were to be treated as fixed in all time coming' and (3) that the important principle is that Scotland should be adequately represented, that the representative peers did not and do not represent the people of Scotland but the peers of Scotland, that the people of Scotland were and are represented by the Scottish members of the House of Commons, that House of Lords Act does not disciminate against Scotland as compared with England, that Scotland will continue to be represented in the House of Lords by peers with Scottish connections and Scottish interests, that the House of Lords Act will not end effective representation of the people of Scotland and that the idea that the peers of Scotland still have a mandate to sit and vote in the House of Lords under article 22 is 'quite out of touch with reality'. I have already dealt with these points above and will only add that while these arguments may appear reasonable and just as historical and practical arguments, they are not legal arguments in the main (though couched in legal terms) and it is the legality of the House of Lords Act that was the issue that the Committee was asked to address.

In short, when the Parliament of Scotland entered into the treaty it did not do so with the intention that the treaty could simply be amended or repealed at will by the new Parliament of Great Britain and, indeed, the whole purpose of the treaty was plainly and undeniably to protect the interests of Scotland in that new parliament by agreeing certain terms that would apply after the union. Some articles in the treaty (or associated legislation) are declared to be unalterable for all time coming*, some have specific provision for amendment and others do not specify either that they are unalterable or that they can be amended. The question is whether it is safe (or legal) to assume that an article of this latter type was intended to allow amendment or repeal. The critical point here is the one I have already made above and which is regularly used by judges; namely that had parliament intended to allow amendment or repeal then they could and would have made specific provision to that effect. So what do you do when you want to change a treaty in such circumstances? Well, the answer is quite simple; you hold a referendum. Was this thinking really beyond all the members of the Committee for Privileges, given their 'concern' for adequate representation? I don't think so. In short, the decision of the Committee for Privileges was a political one, not a legal one, and as a legal decision clearly does not hold water.

*e.g. The Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707 states that the Presbyterian Church in Scotland 'shall remain and continue unalterable... for ever'.

The Scotland Act 1998

It is also necessary to consider the Scotland Act 1998, which established the devolved Scottish Parliament. Section 29 says that 'an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament' and this includes any provision which relates to reserved matters (s.29(2)(b)) and any provision which makes modification of Scots private or criminal law 'as it applies to reserved matters' (s.29(4)(b)). Under Schedule 5, Part I, honours and dignities are reserved matters, so it follows that the Scottish Parliament has no competence to make laws affecting honours or dignities or private or criminal law as it applies to honours or dignities. Without going into the question of whether abolishing a criminal jurisdiction exercised by the holder of a dignity falls within the scope of s.29(4)(b), it is clear that Scottish feudal baronies are dignities (apart from anything else s.63 Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 refers to feudal baronies as dignities*) and that the Scottish Parliament therefore has no competence to make laws affecting them.

It follows that the purported abolition of baronial jurisdiction under the s.63 Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 is void and of no effect. Put bluntly (and in the words of the Scotland Act 1998) it 'is not law'. Salvesen v Riddell [2012] CSIH 26 shows that an Act of the Scottish Parliament can be struck down by the Courts.

*A practice note of the Lord Lyon dated 3/12/2008 also refers to the 'persons owning a dignity of baron'. Other references to feudal baronies as dignities are Bankton, II.iii.84, Erskine, 'Institutes', II.iii.46, Stair, 'Institutions', II.iii.45 and George Joseph Bell, 'Principles', 10th Ed., para. 750.

The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000

The Scottish Law Commission's 'Report on the Abolition of the Feudal System' said (para 2.43 and 2.44) that, in their view, it would be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to 'deal' with feudal baronies because they are not an 'aspect of the constitution' as referred to in Schedule 5 Scotland Act 1998 and because the Queen has no prerogative functions in relation to feudal baronies. The argument here appears to be that anyone can buy and sell a barony and that the prerogative of the Crown is not involved in the process.* Firstly, in law the sale of a barony equates to (though it does not actually involve) a resignation to the Crown and a re-grant by the Crown (i.e. legally it is a resignation to the Crown and re-grant by the Crown - and the re-grant is an exercise of the prerogative of the Crown), so the Crown was, in law, involved in the process and, secondly, a barony is a jurisdiction held as a franchise from the Crown and exercised on behalf of the Crown (it is part of the regalia majora); it is the private administration of a part of public justice created by a grant from the Crown. Since the grant of the jurisdiction was an exercise of a royal prerogative, removing that jurisdiction was an exercise of a royal prerogative. It is therefore incorrect to say that feudal baronies do not involve the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. In addition, Schedule 5 Scotland Act 1998 says that honours and dignities (it mentions no exclusions) are part of the prerogative of the Crown and are reserved as such. It is not open to the Commission to then say 'Oh, but we have decided that such-and-such a type of honour or dignity is not part of the prerogative of the Crown and is therefore not reserved' in direct contravention of Schedule 5 Scotland Act 1998; if a feudal barony is an honour or a dignity it falls within the reservation - period.

It follows that the purported abolition of baronial jurisdiction under s.63 is void and of no effect, as are any consequential changes in the practice of the Lord Lyon in relation to the heraldic additaments of barons and baronial officers.

Thus it is clear that the abolition of baronial jurisdiction was not only void under s.29 Scotland Act 1998 (because honours and dignities are reserved matters outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament) but it was also void under Article 20 of the Treaty of Union 1707 (which protects heritable jurisdictions as rights of property) and the associated Acts of Parliament - a double whammy.

*If you compare a feudal barony with, say, a dukedom, both are created by the Crown, both pass in accordance with the terms of their charter of creation (i.e. in the case of a dukedom when the duke dies it goes to his heir without any involvement of the crown (i.e. by inheritance); in the case of a barony it either passes by inheritance or by sale, but this is still in accordance with its charter which allows succession by an assignee) but since the removal of the right of peers to sit in the House of Lords the duke no longer exercises any public function, but before the Act the baron still exercised a jurisdiction on behalf of the Crown, being part of the regalia majora. So, in fact, it is the dukedom that is a dignity which involves no prerogative of the Crown not the feudal barony. So perhaps the Scottish Parliament should have abolished all peerage titles (and baronetcies) rather than feudal baronies. An interesting thought.

It is also worth noting that in para. 2.20 of their report the Scottish Law Commission say that rights of criminal and civil jurisdiction are inalienable Crown rights, as part of the regalia majora, and that 'it is clear that inalienable Crown rights can never have entered into the feudal system of land tenure as it is defined for the purposes of this report. Having always been retained by the Crown they can never have been held of the Crown or of any subject superior. They would be unaffected by the abolition of the feudal system of land tenure.' But if criminal and civil jurisdiction is not a part of the feudal system how can the criminal and civil jurisdiction of barons be abolished by abolishing the feudal system? Clearly, this part of the report is wrong in the sense that barons did exercise rights of criminal and civil jurisdiction so these rights were alienated from the Crown. However, the Commission was right in the sense that rights of jurisdiction are not part of the feudal system; they are part of the regalia majora exercised by barons on behalf of the Crown, quite distinct from the land. Crown charters of baronies refer to the 'lands and barony of x'; in law they are two separate and distinct things. The land is held of the king as paramount feudal superior but the jurisdiction (the barony) is exercised on behalf of the Crown as part of the regalia majora (it could be taken back by the Crown if not exercised properly). Nowhere in their report did the Commission identify the critical fact that the barony and the jurisdiction are one and the same thing; the barony is the jurisdiction. So not only was the jurisdiction of barons not affected by the abolition of the feudal system per se, because it was never part of the feudal system of land tenure (and it is 'the feudal system of land tenure' that was abolished by s.1 of the Act), but the jurisdiction of barons was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament because baronies are dignities which are specifically reserved under Schedule 5 Scotland Act 1998. It is important to realize the critical distinction between the holding of land as part of the feudal system and the grant of a part of the rights of public justice of the Crown (i.e. part of the regalia majora) over that land. A baron (indeed any landholder) had rights of private jurisdiction as a landholder (e.g. concerning disputes between tenants) but he had separate rights of public jurisdiction as a baron. The former were part of the feudal system; the latter were not, as the Scottish Law Commission itself acknowledged. Even if the Scottish Parliament could abolish the rights of private jurisdiction that landholders enjoyed under the feudal system it could not abolish the rights of public justice enjoyed by barons and exercised by them on behalf of the Crown, partly because those rights were not part of the feudal system and partly because they were reserved matters under Schedule 5 Scotland Act 1998.

We can conclude as follows:

1. Feudal barons were the original Peers of Scotland and sat in Parliament as such (This is simple historical fact).
2. Their right to sit in Parliament as Peers was never lost and continued until the Treaty of Union in 1707 (As confirmed by Sir George Mackenzie, an institutional writer regarded as authoritative in Scottish courts of law, as stated above).
3. As Peers of Scotland at that time all feudal barons became Peers of Great Britain under article 23 of the Treaty (These are the plain words of the Treaty and are still on the statute book, as stated above).
4. They and their successors in these Peerages (including purchasers) have continued to be Peers ever since (by operation of law, as with all peerages).
5. All laws passed since 1707 which contravene the rights of barons under the Treaty of Union (including their rights of jurisdiction and their rights and privileges as peers) are void and of no effect, except as expressly provided for by the Treaty (as acknowledged in McCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396, as stated above).

It is clear therefore that a lordship of regality in Scotland is, in addition to being a peerage of Scotland as described above, a royal title which makes the grantee a sovereign prince (if not actually a king) and carries with it the right to (1) hold civil and criminal courts (with a right of appeal in civil cases to the Scottish parliament), (2) impose the death penalty and other criminal sanctions, (3) confer titles, (4) grant arms, (5) use the title 'Lord of Regality', (6) use the title 'Lord Admiral' (if the regality is coastal and carries rights of admiralty), (7) bear the coronet of a duke, as well as supporters (as a peer) and (8) enjoy the privileges of peers (see here also) as they existed in 1707, including the right to trial by peers* (purportedly abolished in 1948), the right of access to the sovereign at any time and freedom from arrest in civil matters (including contempt of court). The Regality of Mordington was, as stated above, confirmed by a Crown Charter in 1856 (although, in any event, regalities are, like Scottish feudal baronies, legally indestructible except for an act of the Crown (e.g. an Act of Parliament), as confirmed by Professor William Croft Dickinson ('The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath 1523-1542', p. l & xviii)).

*The right to trial by one's peers originates in clause 39 of Magna Carta, where it is said 'No free man is to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him, except in accordance with the judgment of his peers, or in accordance with the law of the land.' Gadd states that this did not originally cover criminal matters but later on it clearly did. It would seem therefore that the right to trial by one's peers covers both civil and criminal matters, if Magna Carta still applies (which it does). (Gadd, 'Peerage Law', ISCA Publishing Ltd., Bristol, 1985, pp. 80-81).

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are the two royal duchies in England. It should be noted that they are duchies (which are territories to which the title of duke is attached) as opposed to dukedoms (which are mere personal titles not attached to lands). They are 'royal' in the sense that by virtue of their charters of erection, as well as subsequent charters and Acts of Parliament, the first is held by the heir to the throne and the second is held by the monarch. The other thing that they have in common is that both duchies include counties palatine; that is, counties that were erected into palatinates (Cornwall and Lancashire). Within the palatinates the dukes originally held and exercised the entire powers of the crown (to the extent that royal officers had no right of access to the palatinate), and though these powers have gradually been diminished or have (according to some) become obsolete, they remain to a significant degree.

'Much valuable information concerning the origin and constitution of the Duchy [of Lancaster] will be found in Plowden's Report of the great case of the Duchy of Lancaster, in Michaelmas Term, in the fourth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1 Plowd. 212) ; and the recent cases of Alcock v. Cooke (6 Bingham, 840) and Jewison v. Dyson (9 Meeson and Welsby, 540) may be advantageously consulted with relation to the pre-eminent rights exercised within the Duchy under the several royal grants, and the confirmations of them by Parliament, which provide for its rule and government as an inheritance vested in the person of the Sovereign, but apart from the rest of the royal patrimony. These cases seem clearly to establish the doctrine that all the prerogatives and privileges of the King belong to him with reference to the lands parcel of the Duchy of Lancaster, in no less a degree than they do with reference to lands which belong to him immediately in right of his Crown.' (Hardy, William, 'The Charters of the Duchy of Lancaster', London, 1845).

The crown rights (jura regalia) exercised by these duchies extend over the entire counties of Cornwall and Lancashire even though the duchy does not actually own most of the land within those counties. Originally, and as previously described, the jura regalia included complete, or nearly complete, criminal and civil jurisdiction within the palatinates, which were actually completely separate court systems which were a replica of the King's court system at Westminster. These court systems were abolished by the Judicature Act 1873 and the Courts Act 1971. The remaining jura regalia include, for instance, bona vacantia, by which the crown (or in these cases, the duchies) is legal heir to intestate estates or the property of dissolved companies. In the year ended 30 September 2012 the gross income of the Duchy of Lancaster from bona vacantia was over £5 million, though the net income is given to charity.

Interestingly, the Crown Estate (part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign 'in right of the Crown' which are managed under the provisions of The Crown Estate Act 1961 by The Crown Estate Commissioners) includes rights in relation to the seabed stretching to the limit of territorial waters and beyond to the continental shelf and, as a result, the Crown Estate is now making many millions of pounds a year from licences for offshore windfarms. But according to the Scottish Law Commission's 'Report on the Abolition of the Feudal System' (Scots Law Com No 168), para. 2.21, the regalia minora, which (the report says) are capable of alienation*, include 'the sea, the seabed, foreshore and tidal rivers'. But if a grant of a palatinate or regality was actually a grant of the entire rights of the crown, which included the jura regalia (including rights of admiralty over adjoining seas), and by which the king's writ did not run within the area of the palatinate or regality, and by which the King's officers were excluded from the palatinate or regality, did not such a grant include rights over the seabed adjoining such palatinates or regalities as part of the regalia minora? If a grant of a palatinate or regality automatically included regalia minora such as salmon fishings (as we know it did) then did it not also automatically include all other regalia minora, including the seabed? Palatinate or regality rights certainly included the right to wrecks and it was for this reason that the agreement of the Duke of Argyll was required for the excavation of the wreck of a ship of the Spanish Armada (the San Juan de Silicia) in Tobermory Bay. If such rights were alienated by the Crown it was, of course, still be possible for Parliament to resume such rights (i.e. take them back) but only with payment of appropriate compensation.

*'The King has an undoubted sovereignty and jurisdiction, which he has immemorially exercised through the medium of the Admiralty Courts, over the British seas, that is, the seas which encompass the four sides of the British Islands.... By implication of law the property in the soil under these public waters is also in the King... As to the soil or fundum maris, there can be no doubt that it may be claimed either by charter or prescription...' (Chitty, Joseph, 'A Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown', London, 1820, p. 142-3). Thus a lord of regality who has jurisdiction (sovereignty) over an area of sea also had the rights of the crown in the soil under that sea, given that a grant of a regality was a grant of all the rights of the crown (except the right to try treason).

Interestingly, the fact that the king's writ did not run in a palatinate is the reason why the consent of the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, is still required for any Act of Parliament that affects the Duchy of Cornwall and, to this extent, the Duchy of Cornwall is outside the law of the United Kingdom; in effect, a separate kingdom. This is also, apparently, the reason why the Duchy is not subject to taxation. The 1913, ‘Opinion on the Duchy of Cornwall by the Law Officers of the Crown' states:

'1. We are of the opinion that the same principles which render the provisions of an Act of Parliament inapplicable to the Crown unless the Crown is expressly named, apply also to the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall. This result arises from the peculiar title of the Prince of Wales to the Duchy of Cornwall. In other respects, the Prince of Wales, as being the first subject of the Crown is, like other subjects, bound by statutory instruments.

2. Taxation is not and cannot be exacted from land; it is exacted from subjects who are taxpayers. For the reason given in our answer to the first question, The Duke of Cornwall is not liable to such taxation, but it may be that he will not wish to insist upon his privilege of exemption.'

The point is that ALL palatinates and regalities had the same status as the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster; the king's writ did not run in them (that was and is the definition of a palatinate or regality) and thus it is clear that palatinates and regalities must be exempt from Acts of Parliament and taxation in the same way.

What the existence of these duchies and their surviving rights of jura regalia show is that counties palatine continue to exist in England to the extent not abrogated by law. But if palatinates continue to exist in England, what has happened to palatinates (or regalities) in Scotland? What happened to their rights of jura regalia? It has been claimed that regalities were abolished by the Heritable Jurisdictions Act 1747 but this is not so because that Act was an Act to abolish part of the jurisdiction of baronial and regality courts (the power of life and death) and the reduced jurisdiction survived until the abolition of the feudal system in 2004. The survival of regalities is proved by the continued existence of the Regality of Holyroodhouse; the survival of jura regalia is proved by the fact that salmon fishings (part of the 'regalia minora' or minor rights of the crown, which, with the 'regalia majora' make up the 'jura regalia') continued to pass with baronies until the abolition of the feudal system in 2004. In any event, and as shown above, the Heritable Jurisdictions Act was itself void as contrary to the Treaty of Union, which preserved heritable jurisdictions as rights of property. So, if regalities and their rights of jura regalia continued after 1747 then what happened to the right of bona vacantia for example? In the case of the Regality of Mordington the regality was, like the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, protected in perpetuity by an Act of Parliament of 1567 but, in addition to this, the Regality of Mordington was also protected by an international treaty (The Treaty of Union).

What if the Barony of Mordington had passed with the lands of Over Mordington in 1634?

NB - In a letter to me dated 19th October 2004 the Lord Lyon wrote: 'The 1634 charter clearly did not include the barony [of Mordington]'.

Before 1634 the Barony of Mordington consisted of the lands of Over Mordington and the lands of Nether Mordington. The lands of Over Mordington were disposed of by the Earl of Morton in 1634, who resigned them into the hands of the king for regrant to Sir James Douglas, who then held them of the king. If the barony of Mordington went with the lands of Over Mordington in 1634 then the lands of Nether Mordington must have been dissolved from that barony at that time (Sir James Douglas cannot have had baronial jurisdiction over lands he had no legal interest in). Normally, when lands were dissolved from a barony it was because part of the barony had been surrendered to the king for regrant to another person, to be held by that person of the king, and they therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the sheriff (who exercised royal justice as representative of the king), like other lands not within a barony; unless, of course, the king erected the lands into a new barony. But, in this case, we are not dealing with the lands surrendered by the superior to the king but the lands retained by the superior. So what would have happened to the lands retained by the superior (the lands of Nether Mordington) in this case?

According to the rule outlined above, lands dissolved from a barony (the lands of Nether Mordington in this case) would have been held of the King under the jurisdiction of the sheriff. But since the Earl of Morton retained regality jurisdiction over the lands of Nether Mordington (we know this because those lands were expressly dissolved from the Regality of Dalkeith in 1636), it follows that appeals from the sheriff court would have gone to the regality court, thus making, in effect, the king's jurisdiction (through the sheriff) subject to the jurisdiction of one of his own vassals, the Earl of Morton. This is not possible because (1) the king's courts could not be subject to the jurisdiction of one of the king's own vassals and (2) lands were either within the 'royalty', where royal jurisdiction pertained, or within 'regality', where regality jurisdiction pertained; they cannot have been partly within one and partly within the other at the same time (Lord Bankton, 'An Institute of the Laws of Scotland', II, III, para. 83).

Of course, if the lands retained had not been within a regality then they would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the sheriff. But lands within a regality remained within the regality even if resigned by the lord of regality to the king for re-grant to someone else to be held by that person of the king, unless those lands were expressly dissolved from the regality.* So, if lands resigned by the lord of regality remained within the regality, how can lands not resigned by the lord of regality be dissolved from the regality? Clearly, they can't. So the lands of Nether Mordington remained within the regality after 1634, and because they remained within the regality the Earl of Morton must have continued to hold baronial jurisdiction over those lands.

*Lord Bankton states ('An Institute of the Laws of Scotland', II, III, 93) that 'If the Lord of Regality disponed certain of the lands, tho' to be holden of the crown, they were not exempted from the regality jurisdiction, unless it was specially expressed; or the lands conveyed jure regalitatis, whereas such disposition would disjoin the lands from a barony, as is above observed'.

The ONLY solution, therefore, is that the Earl of Morton continued to hold baronial jurisdiction over the lands of Nether Mordington, but not as Baron of Mordington (if that barony passed to Sir James Douglas); it was, if you like, a separate parcel of baronial jurisdiction distinct from the regality (in the same way as the Barony of Mordington itself had been a separate parcel of baronial jurisdiction before 1634). This baronial jurisdiction over the lands of Nether Mordington CANNOT have merged with (i.e. become an indivisible part of) the Regality of Dalkeith because a regality was impartible and indestructible (legally a 'unum quid' or 'one thing'), so the baronial jurisdiction must have remained legally separate from it, like the Barony of Mordington itself when part of that regality. Baronies within regalities remained separate unless specifically united 'in unam integram et liberam baroniam et in liberam regaliam feu regalitatem' (Croft-Dickinson, 'The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath 1523-1542', p. xxxvii, l) and this clearly did not happen in this case.

So when the Earl of Morton resigned his WHOLE interest in the lands of Nether Mordington to the King in 1636 for regrant to Thomas Ramsay, that whole interest included baronial jurisdiction over the lands of Nether Mordington - but separate from the Regality of Dalkeith. Those lands were dissolved from the Regality of Dalkeith in 1636 but the entire remaining interest of the Earl of Morton (including baronial jurisdiction) passed to Thomas Ramsay. We know this because the 1636 charter states 'that the said Mr Thomas, his spouse and their foresaids may enjoy and possess them in all respects, just as the said earl possesses and enjoys, and his successors and others will possess and enjoy the said lordship and enjoy the regality of Dalkeith'. In other words, ALL the remaining rights of the Earl of Morton went to Thomas Ramsay, including the baronial jurisdiction, even if the barony was not specifically mentioned (as happened when all the lands of a barony was disposed of). Since Thomas Ramsay held baronial jurisdiction over the lands of Nether Mordington he was baron of those lands, regardless of whether this was the original Barony of Mordington or some other barony created in 1634 in the manner described above. In other words, and in terms of baronial (as opposed to regality) jurisdiction, it doesn't matter if the Barony of Mordington went with the lands of Over Mordington in 1634 because there MUST have been another barony over the lands of Nether Mordington after 1634.

The above ignores the issue of the regality jurisdiction attached to the barony since 1382 but that would have been parcelled with the baronial jurisdiction, so if it existed as a parcel with the baronial jurisdiction (and we know it did) then it went with the barony jurisdiction in the manner described above. You would have just had a barony held in regality within a regality (in the same way that the Regality of Dalkeith once formed part of the Dukedom of Lennox) rather than an ordinary barony within a regality.

Postscript (The Rule of Law)

'The law as I see it, has two great objectives: to preserve order and to do justice; and the two do not always coincide. Those whose training lies towards order, put certainty before justice; whereas those whose training lies towards the redress of grievances, put justice before certainty. The right solution lies in keeping the proper balance between the two.' (Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls 1962-1982). He also said 'It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned.'

Er, nope. The law has one great objective, which is to apply the law, not to develop the law through judicial activism or to decide on public policy ('preserve order'). Justice consists of applying the law. If the law needs to be changed that is the job of Parliament, not judges.

It is clear that the House of Lords Act 1999 was in breach of the Treaty of Union 1707 (indeed, that the Act was void under the Treaty) but that the Committee for Privileges, which consisted of both judges (Law Lords) and politicians (members of the House of Lords), decided to ignore that fact. Why did they do this? One can only assume that they did it because they believed that they were acting in the public interest; the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This sounds eminently reasonable.

But let's consider the matter further. The Committee was asked to consider the legality of the House of Lords Act 1999; it was not asked whether it thought it was in the public interest or not. Yet three Law Lords, knowing this, decided to do what they considered to be in the public interest rather than simply apply the law to the facts. What are the implications of this?

In the first place, if a judge is prepared to ignore the law and make a decision purely on the basis of his idea of the public interest, he has ceased to be a judge and has become.... a politician. He is breaking the most fundamental of constitutional safeguards - the separation between the legislature and the judiciary (i.e. between those who are elected to decide what the public interest is, and make laws accordingly, and those who are employed to apply those laws with impartiality). When one judge, or a number of judges sitting together, can both make the law (in effect) and punish you for breaking that law then you are living in a tyranny. It's as simple as that. In the second place, if a judge is prepared to ignore the law when faced with a constitutional issue of the first importance and of high public visibility, how much more likely is it that he will do so when faced with an issue of lesser importance, such as when deciding whether or not to convict you for a minor offence?

Consider this real-life example. You have a minor verbal spat with, say, a traffic warden, who summons the police. You are charged with committing an offence; say, conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress under s.5 Public Order Act 1986. This is quite possible and you might remember the case where a youth was arrested and charged with a public order offence because he told a mounted policeman that he thought his horse was gay. You didn't commit the offence but the police decide to nail you because, in their view, you 'gave them lip' and they want to teach you a lesson (as in the 'gay horse' case). You are duly summoned to appear before the local Magistrates' Court. The traffic warden and police cook the evidence between them to get you convicted, saying that you went berserk and were shouting and screaming in public. Not to put too fine a point on it they commit perjury in order to give you a criminal record. Unfortunately for them there is close-up CCTV evidence which shows you talking quietly to the traffic warden and police while members of the public (elderly ladies and so on) walk past only a few feet away without batting an eyelid (Question: How can it be said that you were likely to cause alarm and distress when you demonstrably didn't?). Shockingly the Magistrates find you guilty and give you a suspended sentence. Why did they do it? Well, they saw the conclusive CCTV evidence so they know what actually happened; there can be no doubt about that. The reason they found you guilty is because, while they were fully aware that you did not actually commit the offence, you did call a traffic warden a 'twerp' and they think it is better to give you a suspended sentence than to find that the traffic warden and police lied in court*; in their view that would not be in the public interest. The choice, as they see it, is between causing you some 'minor inconvenience' and doing what they actually ought to do, which is to have the traffic warden and police charged with perjury.

*Judges have no compunction about branding ordinary people liars (in public and with no right of reply).

Perhaps this is not a serious issue in the grand scheme of things, although for the police to commit a criminal offence in order to criminalize an innocent person is actually very serious, as is the conscious failure of the courts to hold them to account for doing so. But what if the police (largely as a result of their own incompetence) blow a young man's brains out on the London tube under the mistaken impression (and perhaps not even that) that he is a suicide bomber, then lie about it, and the courts decide not to pursue the matter - in the public interest? What if the courts decide not to allow servicemen who were deliberately exposed to radiation from nuclear tests in Australia shortly after World War II, and who develop cancer as a result, to sue the government - in the public interest? What if the courts decide that our soldiers are not covered by the Human Rights Act while serving in Iraq but that Iraqis are (and can sue in UK courts as a result) - in the public interest? What if a young boy becomes ill, dies unnecessarily as a result of medical negligence, the records exposing that medical negligence are deliberately falsified and the courts then deny his parents a remedy - in the public interest? What if a judge finds a man guilty of a 'race-hate crime' when clearly aware that he is innocent* - in the public interest - and that man commits suicide as a result?

*The case referred to is David Wilson v Procurator Fiscal [2005HCJAC97] at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005HCJAC97.html.

1. In order to be found guilty of a criminal offence a person must generally have committed the crime ('actus reus'), that is 'done the deed', and have a guilty mind ('mens rea'); in other words, he must have intended to commit the crime - and the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused intended to commit the crime (as well as that he 'did the deed' of course). For instance, a man who kills another man accidentally should clearly not be convicted of murder because there was no intention to kill; he 'did the deed' but had no intention of doing it (negligence and recklessness are another matter of course, but these would give rise to a charge of manslaughter, not murder).

2. What the accused did in this case was to distribute a pamphlet about Muslims (not Pakistanis who were not mentioned), who are members of a religion, not a race.

3 The crime with which the accused was charged was inciting racial hatred against Pakistanis, not inciting religious hatred against Muslims. There was no offence of inciting religious hatred in 2001 and you will appreciate that what the judges did in this case was to 'shoe-horn' a 'religious hate offence', which didn't then exist in law, into an existing race hate offence. s.7 Public Order Act 1986 Act defines 'racial hatred' as 'hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins' but the pamphlet did not do this; it only referred to their religion.

4. In order to prove the offence it was therefore necessary to prove (1) that the accused equated Muslims with Pakistanis and (2) that he knew or believed that his audience did the same (because clearly if he was not aware that his audience equated Muslims with Pakistanis he could not, as a matter of law, have intended to incite hatred of Pakistanis amongst his audience by inciting hatred of Muslims).

5. The court did not do this. The court established that in the area local people (or rather 'people with a good knowledge of the local community') generally equated Muslims with Pakistanis but at no point did the court establish that the accused (who did not live in the area) knew this. It was established (apparently) that the accused knew that a high proportion of local Pakistanis were Muslim but there is a difference between knowing something yourself and knowing that other people know that thing (If you are not sure about this ask any teacher).

6. The court therefore established a fact about a group of people ('people with a good knowledge of the local community') and assumed without any justification that the accused, who was not a member of the local community, was aware of that fact. You may feel that it was a reasonable assumption to make but a criminal trial is not about making reasonable assumptions, it is about proving facts beyond reasonable doubt; this is critically important and the judges knew it. In other words, the judges were not entitled (and they knew they were not entitled) to assume he knew; his knowledge had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

7. In effect therefore (but it wasn't stated) the court made a finding of fact (that the accused knew that people in the area equated Muslims with Pakistanis) which they knew was not justified.

8. As a result of this 'finding' the accused was imprisoned and subsequently committed suicide.

9. Let me put this the other way round. Is it acceptable to find a man guilty not on the basis of what he knew or believed but on the basis of what a group of people (of which he is not one) knew or believed? Be careful how you answer. Assume for a moment that you burn a copy of the Koran, but you are not aware that it is a copy of the Koran because it is in Chinese. Would you be happy to be convicted of inciting religious hatred on the basis that other people (but not you) knew the book was a copy of the Koran?

10. In law therefore the accused was not guilty because it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to stir up racial hatred against Pakistanis (a critical element of the offence) but the judges decided to find him guilty nonetheless - in the public interest. This led to the man's death, which was a clear consequence of the fact that he had been criminalized. Is this OK with you? You may feel that the accused deserved to be punished (if not killed) but should he have been punished not according to the law but according to the personal opinions of the judges? The point is that if this is acceptable then why bother to have a requirement to prove intent at all? Why not just have a rule which says 'You will be found guilty if the judges think you deserve to be found guilty?' Of course, the mere existence of the requirement to prove intent with respect to a criminal offence is an acknowledgement of the fact that it is a just and necessary requirement. Thus are the judges hoisted by their own petards.

11. The judges (Lord Osborne, Lord Philip and Lord McEwan) therefore deliberately perverted the course of justice and caused a man's death in consequence. Now I cannot prove that they intended to directly cause his death (which would be a simple case of murder) but I am satisfied that they acted maliciously and that they were the 'but for' cause of his death (i.e. he would not have committed suicide if he had not been convicted) and that they either (1) ought reasonably to have foreseen and/or did foresee the significant risk of that consequence and went ahead anyway (which amounts to manslaughter) or (2) were aware that his death was a virtual certainty (which amounts to murder - see R v Nedrick 1986).

12. If this is not enough then consider this also. The accused asked the appeal court to consider whether the pamphlet was protected by the right of free speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which, inter alia, protects expressions which are insulting, abusive or offensive). The court refused to even consider this point on the grounds that he should have raised the matter before (i.e. in the lower court) and had given no good reason as to why he had not done so. But there was a good reason, and that was that the accused was not legally represented in the appeal court and so could not explain the conduct of the person who represented him (his solicitor advocate) in the lower court. In refusing to even consider the applicability of Article 10, the court demanded of the accused the same knowledge of the law (Are you familiar with s.182(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995?) and standards of conduct that they would have expected from a trained solicitor or barrister and made no allowance for the interests of justice, which clearly demand that such an important issue (freedom of speech) should be considered (the judges had the discretion to consider the matter in the interests of justice). Also, of course, the fact that the accused overlooked the matter does not excuse the judges from doing so themselves and the idea that a judge cannot raise a matter not already raised by one of the parties is just nonsense. For instance, if a barrister argues a point on the authority of a certain case, a judge is quite free to refer to a different case, not referred to by the barrister, to contradict his argument - and judges do this all the time. In fact, judges have a clear duty to raise points of law not raised by the parties or their representatives. In addition, the prosecution had a duty to draw the attention of the court to legal provisions, case law etc. that were prejudicial to its case (apart from anything else it is against their rules of professional conduct for solicitors and barristers to take advantage of a person representing himself in this manner). Were the judges right to ignore a clear breach of these duties (to raise unfavourable arguments and not to take advantage of a person representing himself)? In fact, weren't the judges in breach of their own rules of professional conduct as barristers (all judges are barristers) to the extent that they allowed the prosecution to take advantage of that person? Last but not least, courts are under a positive obligation under s.3 Human Rights Act 1998 to read and give effect to legislation in a way that is compatible with Convention rights and, under s.2, to take into account any relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Both the lower court and the appeal court failed to do this and, in the case of the appeal court, actually refused to do this even when specifically asked. Of course, the appeal ought to have been allowed on the simple grounds that the lower court had failed to comply with s.2 and s.3.

13. If this is not enough then consider this also. The accused was charged with inciting racial hatred. The findings from which the intention to incite racial hatred was deduced were (1) that the leaflet was 'threatening in character', (2) that it was 'likely to cause a breach of the peace and to provoke fear and alarm among residents in Pollockshields', (3) that it 'contained written material which had clear racist overtones' and (4) that it contained information that was 'insulting and abusive to the Muslim population of Pollockshields' and was 'an affront to the dignity of Muslims living in Pollockshields and undermined their position in the community'.* But surely, and ignoring the racial/religious question for a moment, if you insult and abuse someone with no good reason the reaction of most people is likely to be the exact opposite of hatred for the person abused; it is likely to be hatred of the abuser. Most ordinary, reasonable people (and by definition most people are ordinary, reasonable people) would react in that way. So if we assume that the accused was himself reasonably intelligent (and if he wasn't he may well not have been responsible for this actions), he must logically have been aware of the likely (indeed probable) reaction to such conduct. So why would someone do something which common sense tells him is likely to result in hatred of himself rather than anything else (unless, of course, what he said was actually true - which would raise the question of whether telling the truth should be criminalized)? The point is that if it is obvious that a certain course of conduct (abusing someone) is likely to cause a certain result (hatred of the abuser) how can it be argued that the intention was to produce some other, less likely result (hatred of the abused)? Ask yourself this question. If you want to provoke sympathy for someone is not one of the best ways of doing it to victimize him in public in some way? In law if a certain course of conduct is clearly going to have a certain result (result 1) then it is illogical to argue that some other result (result 2) was intended without specific evidence beyond the course of conduct itself (because the course of conduct on its own implies an intention to produce result 1, the obvious and reasonable result - it's a sort of 'Why did the chicken cross the road?' question (Answer: 'To get to the other side')). What evidence beyond the course of conduct itself was considered? Well, the only relevant additional finding of fact was that the accused was a member of the BNP. So it is clear that the intention of the accused was not deduced from his conduct (because the conduct was likely, in this country today, to have the opposite result to that which it was claimed he intended) but was deduced solely (no other relevant findings of fact are mentioned) from the fact of his membership of the BNP. In other words, the reasoning was that members of the BNP hate Pakistanis so any anti-Pakistani material created by a member of the BNP must be intended to cause hatred of Pakistanis (if a Pakistani had created such material would it have been assumed that he did it out of hatred of Pakistanis?). The critical point is that this train of argument starts with an assumption that members of the BNP hate Pakistanis. The judges may well have been right about this but they were not entitled to make that assumption because they are judges in a court of law who are required to make findings of fact on the basis of evidence, not assumptions on the basis of prejudice, media reports or popular opinion. In being prejudiced against members of the BNP the judges were, in effect, guilty of the same offence that they found the accused guilty of - unjustified prejudice. The difference is that the prejudice of the judges caused a man's death (that of the accused) whereas the prejudice of the accused had no demonstrable impact whatsoever. Clearly, some forms of prejudice are acceptable (regardless of the consequences) while others are not. Do you see what I am getting at? The finding of fact that the accused was a member of the BNP was clearly important (otherwise it would not have been mentioned) but what impact did that finding of fact have on the verdict? Clearly, it was assumed that, as a member of the BNP, the accused must hate Pakistanis so that by producing anti-Pakistani material he must have been intending to incite hatred of Pakistanis. But the point was never proved, and even if it had been proved would it have been safe to make an assumption about one man based on his membership of a group? Possibly, but would you, for instance, make assumptions about a man simply because he was, say, a German army officer during World War II? What if that officer was Claus von Stauffenberg, the man who tried to assassinate Hilter? Hmmm. You may feel that the judges were morally justified in doing what they did (I am not arguing the point) but were they legally justified? This is the difference (or is supposed to be) between a court of law and a kangaroo court; the former acts according to the law, the latter does not. So which type of court was this do you think?

*Note that the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which amended the Public Order Act 1986, states: 'Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.', so insulting, abusing and ridiculing religions or the practices of their adherents was specifically excluded when the offence of inciting religious hatred was introduced in 2006. So the judges convicted the accused, at least in part (it was they who said that the pamphlet was 'an affront to the dignity of Muslims living in Pollockshields'), on the basis of a crime that did not exist in law and which excluded such grounds when it was introduced five years later.

Can judges really act in that way? Well, the above cases are all real, so we need to identify how these things can not only happen but happen regularly (indeed, every day).

Most members of the public see the judicial process as being essentially quite simple; it is just a process of finding out the facts and applying the law to those facts. Not only do the courts have carefully drafted laws and regulations to go by, they have court procedures, rules of interpretation, rules of evidence and the benefit of hundreds of years of case law (precedent). What could possibly go wrong? Lawyers and judges (and victims of the judicial mincing machine) know that a court can basically engineer the process to come to any conclusion they want; they know that this is actually what judges do (and consider themselves very clever in doing - in fact, that is the whole fun of the process). Indeed, they know that the judicial process consists of deciding on an outcome and then finding a way to justify that outcome, using whatever mixture of legal principle, interpretation and case law is required ('Ah, but the facts of this case need to be distinguished slightly from the well-known case of X v Y.'). It's all about the meaning of words. The way in which even the highest courts in the land can tie themselves up in knots over the meaning of one word is illustrated by the fact that the courts in the UK took over 20 years to decide the meaning of the word 'reckless' in the context of manslaughter. Is it objective, by reference to what a reasonable person ought to have known (i.e. the risk of death arising from a course of action), or subjective, by reference to what a person actually knew (See R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 (subjective test) and R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341 (objective test))? Of course, in this situation there was no deliberate distortion of the meaning of words but it illustrates the scope for deliberate distortion; if courts cannot work out the meaning of a word when they are genuinely trying to do so, how much worse will it be when they deliberately try to distort the meaning of a word?

Let's consider the words of a Professor of Law:

'A court invokes whichever of the rules [of interpretation] produces a result that satisfies its sense of justice in the case before it. Although the literal rule is the one most frequently referred to in express terms, the courts treat all three as valid and refer to them as occasion demands, but, naturally enough, do not assign any reason for choosing one rather than another.' (Professor John Willis, 'Statutory Interpretation in a Nutshell' (1938) 16 Can. Bar. Rev.)

With reference to the Committee for Privileges and the House of Lords Act 1999 this type of conduct is illustrated by the contradictory statements of two law lords. Lord Hope of Craighead told the Committee that 'I do not think that it is open to this Committee to question the extent and application of the doctrine of sovereignty' but in Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 at 106 he said: 'So here too [with respect to the Treaty of Union] it may be said that the concept of a Parliament that is absolutely sovereign is not entirely in accord with the reality.' He then goes on to do exactly what he said the Committee could not do - question Parliamentary sovereignty, which, after all the legal arguments, he rules in favour of (Para. 128) on the basis that it is a political reality! Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead told the Committee that clear language would be needed before article 22 'could sensibly be interpreted as intended to preclude all change' (i.e. he effectively inserted words into the Act in order to allow change i.e. when a document says 'x will apply' there is no express limitation of time and it amounts to inserting words to say otherwise) but in Inco Europe Ltd and Others v. First Choice Distribution (A Firm) and Others [2000] UKHL 15 (one year later) he said that a court could only add words where there was a drafting mistake.

So, the courts make decisions based on their sense of justice. What is wrong with that you say? There are a number of things that are wrong with it, all of which are very serious.

1. The first problem is that the courts do not make decisions based purely on their sense of justice; they weigh the need to do justice to you (which is not entirely absent from their minds) against what they see as the public interest* - and the former nearly always loses out to the latter (and when a judge sees himself as a god-like figure guiding the destiny of the nation - and believe me, that is how they see themselves (and so would you if you wore a funny hat and people called you 'My Lord' all the time) - your life and concerns do not figure largely in the scheme of things). This can, and very often does, lead to the grossest injustice to the individual, including causing people's deaths, ruining their lives and denying them a remedy, as illustrated. At the most fundamental level it is quite simply not the job of a court to decide what the public interest requires; that is the job of elected representatives - and they define what the public interest requires via.... laws. The only (I repeat only) function of a court is to decide on the facts and then apply the law to those facts. As Lord Halsbury said in the Earldom of Norfolk case of 1907 (R. P. Gadd, ‘Peerage Law’, p. 110): ‘Our duty is to 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.'

*Of course, where you have an essentially private issue, like an argument between 2 Russian billionaires, the court has no reason not to do justice; there is no public interest issue. They are quite happy to do justice to you where it doesn't conflict with their interests.

2. The second problem is that when a court can reach any decision it likes you no longer have the rule of law; in fact, you effectively have no law. You are left to depend entirely on what an individual (the judge) thinks is 'right in the circumstances'; the whim of an individual ('Ah, but I am the right sort of individual' counters the judge). That is not law; it is the antithesis of law. When you go to a lawyer for advice and ask him whether you will win a case he will invariably say that he doesn't know. He is not being annoyingly cautious in saying this; he genuinely has no idea because he knows that whatever the law, rules of procedure, rules of evidence or precedent (case law) may say the judge can and will decide whichever way he likes. Uncertain law is no law; you cease to be a litigant and become a supplicant (which is the way they like it).

3. The third problem is that judges are almost entirely unaccountable for their decisions because (1) they are free from civil suit (you cannot sue them), (2) because judges are very, very (very, very) reluctant to find fault with fellow judges (and a lot of them know each other) and (3) because the machinery for making complaints against judges actually operates as a mechanism for protecting judges from complainants, not for holding them to account*. In other words, judges know that they can do what they like and get away with it.

*If you complain to the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) that a judge has, for instance, made a decision that was clearly unlawful (e.g refused to admit clearly crucial evidence with no good reason), and provide clear evidence of it, they will reject your complaint on the basis that they can only investigate complaints relating to personal misconduct and not the judge's decision. In doing this, they ignore The Judicial Discipline Regulations (Prescribed Procedures) 2006 (SI 2006/676), section 14(1)(b), which makes it quite clear that the OJC cannot exclude complaints relating to a judge's decision where the complaint also raises a question of misconduct (so if a complaint does raise a question of misconduct the OJC should consider it even if it relates to the judge's decision, which you would have thought was fairly obvious - misconduct is misconduct). If a judge, say, deliberately ignores a critical piece of evidence in making a decision ('I saw him standing over the body with a smoking gun saying "I killed him! I killed him!"') does that not amount to misconduct, even if it 'relates to a decision'? Should a judge be held accountable in such circumstances? Hmmm, difficult one that. Also, there is no mention of 'personal misconduct' in these regulations. If you then complain about the OJC to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman on the basis that the information on the OJC's website (about not being able to investigate any complaint that relates to a judicial decision) is misleading (misleading information is - or rather used to be (they have removed it for some funny reason) - a specific ground for complaint allowed by the ombudsman), he will reject your complaint on the basis that the use of the phrase 'personal misconduct' is 'designed to facilitate complainants' understanding' (Letter from Sir John Brigstocke dated 26/8/2008, ref. 08/657). Well, it gives them an understanding I suppose, but it is a wrong understanding which is deliberately misleading - so, an understanding but not the correct one. This is like saying that a lie is designed to give you a clear understanding. Well, yes, a clear understanding but a wrong understanding. What all this means is that unless a judge calls you a bastard or pokes you in the eye, they will do nothing about it.

4. The fourth problem is that a judge's idea of the 'public interest' is geared heavily towards (1) protecting the legal profession and (2) protecting the establishment - in that order (these are the public interest in his view). To illustrate this point I only need to point out that a person is not allowed to be represented in court by anyone other than a solicitor or barrister. So if you are a poor old lady, who cannot afford legal representation, but who has a friend who, while not being qualified in law, is undoubtedly an expert in it, the courts will deny you the right to be represented by that person - but the party opposing you will, if they can afford it, be entitled to hire the best lawyer in the land. Thus the courts deliberately deny you the opportunity to have the best representation that you could obtain (that is, equality of arms), in spite of, I may say, an over-riding duty under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 1) to ensure justice between the parties (which makes those rules meaningless). Why do they do this? To protect the monopoly of the legal profession; that is themselves. In other words, they deliberately deny you access to justice (a fair trial) for money. This is what it boils down to. Clearly, as far as they are concerned, the legal system is there for their benefit, not yours. People who are prepared to act in this manner cannot be relied upon to be impartial - period. See also the heart-rending story of Peggy Wood (also article in The Indpendent 29/7/1993) where the courts decided that the Law Society did not owe her a duty of care. If you think about it this means that while the Law Society has a duty to investigate complaints against solicitors, the victim has no remedy against the Society if it fails to do a proper job i.e. we have a duty with no remedy/sanction for breaching that duty, which is no duty at all. Perhaps the court had not heard of the maxim of equity 'Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy' (but they would have found a way round that in any event). In Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126 Lord Holt said: 'If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it, and, indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.' Clearly, if a right must have an associated remedy for a breach of that right (otherwise it is not a right) then a duty must have an associated remedy/sanction for a breach of that duty (otherwise it is not a duty) - but this was apparently beyond the court's reasoning powers. Furthermore, while the ambulance service, for instance, owes no general duty of care to respond to medical emergencies, once the ambulance service has responded to an emergency call, it does owe a duty of care to the relevant person (see Aitken v Scottish Ambulance Service & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_49) and it follows that once a regulator, such as the Law Society, has undertaken to investigate a complaint, it then owes a duty of care to the complainant to carry out the investigation properly (partly because he may well cease to consider alternative methods of obtaining a remedy). How can it be otherwise?

5. The fifth problem is that judges (indeed the whole judicial system) are heavily prejudiced against certain types of person, and the type of person they hate most is a litigant in person. This is confirmed by the report 'Litigants in person' (Moorhead, Professor R., and Sefton, M, Dept. for Constitutional Affairs, 2005) which says (p. 89): 'As we noted at the outset, many of those we engaged with about unrepresented litigants shaped their immediate reactions around notions that unrepresented litigants were ‘bad or mad’. The judges we spoke to were a notable exception and many staff were sympathetic and constructive in their attitude to unrepresented litigants [or said they were when talking to the authors of the report]Many however also displayed a less flattering undercurrent. It could simply be that the ‘mad, dangerous and stupid’ litigants were what occupied their thoughts because they posed the greatest challenge to their resources and skills, or that they provided better stories, but a notable effect of this tendency was the stereotypical portrayal of unrepresented litigants which in fact is not borne out by a more considered analysis of how often unrepresented litigants become obsessive.' (the evidence shows that litigants in person are no more obsessive than any other type of litigant). In short, if you are a litigant in person then not only do you have no guarantee about the outcome of your case but you can pretty much guarantee that you will be treated as 'bad or mad' and obstructed every step of the way*. This is, of course, a major problem when the majority of people cannot afford to hire a lawyer. Almost the only guarantee you do have is that the legal process will take years, be ruinously expensive and that if you are up against the establishment in any form, or a big company, you will almost invariably lose.

*This obstruction can be very serious. You will find that court staff will obstruct you in every way possible, including directly lying to you and even making you fill in unnecessary forms and pay fees that you are not required to pay. They may well refuse to allow you to send them anything by E-Mail or fax even though solicitors do this all the time. One or two may be helpful but you will find that they rarely know what they are talking about, other than the most basic rules (they are almost completely untrained); you will need to double check everything they tell you. If you complain they may threaten you with a financial investigation (this has happened). An example of this was where a litigant in person who lived over 300 miles from London needed to insert one or two pages into a court bundle held by the Administrative Court in London. The court staff said that they couldn't do it for him and that he would have to go down to London and do it himself. This was a lie as proved by Ewing, R (on the application of) v Davis [2007] EWHC 1730 (Admin), para. 57, which was in the very same court. The solicitors/barristers opposing you will resort to outright lies and character assassination (this will be their main tactic against you in fact), they will fail repeatedly to comply with court rules and court orders and the judge will let them get away with it. One of their main tactics will be to cloud the issues so that the judge loses sight of the key facts (you will be amazed how well this works). They will simply ignore law and case authority that prejudices their case (as will the judge - even if you raise them). You will get the feeling that the judge hasn't even bothered to read your arguments/submissions and you will probably be right about this (sometimes it will be quite evident that he hasn't read your arguments/submissions). Sometimes you will find the judge actually dealing with entirely the wrong matter (Judge: 'I reject you complaint against x.' You: 'Actually my complaint was against y.' A real example). The judge will hammer you for the most minor infringement of the rules and, if you are the claimant, quite probably strike out your claim. Even if he reads your submissions he will simply ignore most of your arguments, dismiss the rest as 'fanciful' and probably try to blacken you as a liar (he will have no compunction about branding you a liar in public). He will interrupt you, over-rule you and not allow you to speak; if you persist in trying to raise a point or ask a question he will simply threaten to lock you up (and then in his judgment he will accuse you of disrupting the hearing); he will bully you mercilessly. If you fight back (i.e. insist on your rights and compliance with the rules) he will simply impose a Civil Restraint Order on you, possibly even without allowing you to first make your case as to why he shouldn't (which is illegal). He will frequently break the rules of his own court in the most flagrant manner (which could even include - this is a real example - hearing a case entirely outside the jurisdiction of the court and continuing even after you have pointed this out to him). When he has finally ruled against you he will hammer you with the costs of the other side (which will be enough to run the legal service of a small country for several years), even though a very large part of those costs have resulted only from their time-wasting, obstruction, obfuscation and rule-breaking. They will heap expensive hotel accommodation and first class travel on you even though you are unemployed and broke. If you appeal you are quite likely to find the appeal court threatening to strike out your appeal because you have failed to provide a document (e.g. the judgment), but this is only because the lower court has failed to provide you with it (another real example). It is likely that this process will cause serious and long-term damage to your health, even a mental breakdown (I have seen repeated examples of this). Trying to be meek and reasonable will make no difference to their conduct, other than to save the judge the trouble of smashing you down. If you take the trouble to learn the court rules and become an expert in the area of law you are concerned with, this will just make the problem worse; the thing they hate most is being shown up by someone like you. All of this is cast iron fact. You will be shocked by it but at least you are forewarned. You may find helpful staff and a sympathetic judge but, frankly, the odds are against it. Even if you do it will probably hit you several months after the case that you have been actually been shafted (many never do wake up to the fact of course).

The question may have occurred to you: 'If the judicial system is so bad then why don't our elected representatives do something about it?' The answer is (1) that a high proportion of politicians are lawyers or ex-lawyers (they do not have your interests at heart), (2) those politicians who are not lawyers are probably not aware of the situation, (3) those politicians who are not lawyers but are aware of the situation are too scared, selfish or lazy to do anything about it (which leaves about 2 MPs who are actually trying do do something about it - which neatly equates to the actual proportion of MPs with a conscience), (4) there is, in effect, a silent 'pact with the devil' between the legislature and the judiciary along the lines of 'We politicians will leave you judges to live the high life off the back of the legal system and go way beyond your proper powers (i.e. decide what constitutes the public interest) if you protect us (the establishment) from the little people'. Deal.*

*How do we know that there is a 'pact with the devil'? Well, take s.5 Public Order Act 1986 which criminalizes, inter alia, 'conduct likely to cause alarm'. If you say 'Boo!' to a goose is that likely to cause it alarm? Quite probably. If you say 'Boo!' to an old lady is that likely to cause her alarm? Quite probably. Ergo, if you say 'Boo!' to an old lady you are quite probably committing a criminal offence (note that there is no requirement to prove that the old lady was alarmed, just that she was likely to be alarmed). The key lies in the words 'likely', 'harassment', 'distress' and 'alarm'. It was widely stated when the bill was being debated (i.e. before it became law) that the use of such words was too wide and uncertain; they would potentially criminalize all sorts of ridiculous things and, more importantly, that no-one would know with reasonable certainty what was criminal and what wasn't (see S H Bailey, D J Harris, D C Ormerod, ‘Civil Liberties – Cases and Materials’, 5th Edition, Butterworths, p. 490-492). The effect of not knowing where the boundary of the law lies (i.e. what is an offence and what isn't) is that people modify their conduct to prevent the possibility that they might commit an offence - which means that the effect of uncertain law is actually to ban a much wider range of conduct that was actually intended (or is reasonable - see the 'gay horse' incident above). The point is that Parliament passed this nonsense into law while fully aware of this consequence. In effect, they delegated to the courts the job of deciding what is criminal and what isn't. In other words, Parliament deliberately gave the courts the power to decide what the law ought to be, as opposed to merely applying the law as laid down by Parliament - and they turned you into a criminal for saying 'Boo!' to your granny at the same time. s.5 also covers conduct likely to cause distress. Question: If I say 'I hate your taste in ties' is that likely to cause you distress? Well, it might do so I'd better not say it; it could be criminal. So the law has effectively banned me from saying that I don't like your tie. Well, thanks for that. And don't believe for one second that they won't seek to criminalize such things; you just have to consider the 'gay horse' incident. People have been prosecuted for throwing snowballs, holding a children's birthday party in their own garden, kissing in the street, being nude in their own home and putting up a satirical poster of a politician. Think about the 'gay horse' incident for a moment. The youth who made the remark was let off but would you go and tell a policeman that you think his horse is gay? No. So the effect is that people are now frightened to make any silly remark to a policeman even though the youth was found innocent. Were the police unaware of this consequence? I don't think so. I think they knew the effect that the case would have even if the youth was found innocent and they charged him with the intention of producing that effect. Did Parliament foresee such things happening? I think we have answered that question already. The effect of s.5 is that Parliament has managed to outlaw a wide range of conduct without specifically making it criminal. If you wanted to clamp down on a population without appearing to do so, could you think of a better way? Not even Orwell thought of that.

Not convinced? Well, that was just a taster. Consider the North Wales Child Abuse Scandal, which ultimately led to a judicial enquiry in 1997, the Waterhouse Enquiry, conducted by a judge, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC (now dead unfortunately - unfortunate because he cannot be held to account). The scandal flared up again in 2012 when allegations surfaced following the exposure of Jimmy Savile as a paedophile; this seems to have given victims the courage to come forward. The 2012 allegations were not new; the complaint was that they had been made during the original enquiries but were either covered up or not properly investigated. A number of points are relevant to this matter as follows:

1. A lot of the abuse seems to have occurred outside the care homes when children (usually boys it seems) were taken away from the homes by car and abused at various locations (motels and so on). In an interview on BBC Radio 5 on 9/11/2012 one of the victims, Keith Gregory, said that it was the 'senior figures', including senior police officers, judges and MPs, who took the boys away from the homes to abuse them. It appears that this abuse was not properly investigated (or not investigated at all) because the remit of the enquiry (see page 19 of the official report) was to investigate 'the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974' and it was considered that since the abuse occurred outside the homes the children were not (technically) 'in care' when the abuse took place*. This was the reasoning that was put forward in a number of media reports in late 2012. So what do you think? Did the authorities cease to have any responsibility for the children the moment those children went out of the front door of their care homes? Do you regard that as an adequate excuse? Would you accept such an excuse from a body or institution responsible for the care of your own children?

*The report outline on page 18 of the official report says:

'Part I: Introduction
Part II: Alleged abuse of children in care in local authority homes in Clwyd between 1974 and 1996
Part III: Alleged abuse of children in care in other non-private residential establishments in Clwyd between 1974 and 1996
Part IV: Alleged abuse of children in care in private residential establishments in Clwyd between 1974 and 1996
Part V: Alleged abuse of children in foster homes in Clwyd between 1974 and 1996
Part VI: The responsibility of higher management in Clwyd
Part VII: Alleged abuse of children in care in local authority homes in Gwynedd between 1974 and 1996
Part VIII: Alleged abuse of children in care in private residential establishments in Gwynedd between 1974 and 1996
Part IX: Alleged abuse of children in foster homes in Gwynedd between 1974 and 1996
Part X: The responsibility of higher management in Gwynedd
Part XI: The role of the Welsh Office
Part XII: The police investigations in Clywd and Gwynedd
Part XIII: The successor authorities
Part XIV: Conclusions and other recommendations'

The concentration on abuse which took place only on the premises of the care homes and residential establishments is borne out by a deeper examination of the report. Within Part II, for example, the report on abuse at Bryn Estyn only deals with abuse which actually took place at Bryn Estyn itself and not outside the home. But, as stated, the most serious allegations made by the victims concerned abuse by high profile individuals at locations outside the home. The report therefore shows how it is possible to compile an apparently comprehensive 900 page report without looking into the most serious allegations at all and to utterly mislead by the use of a single word - 'in'. It takes an expert legal mind to concoct such a cunning deception, so Sir Ronald Waterhouse put his legal training to good use (in one sense). There is a brief description and assessment in Part XII of child abuse outside homes and residential establishments but this relates only to a tiny handful of victims and, while it does conclude that a paedophile ring probably existed in the area at the time, goes no further than that and does little more than re-hash past enquiries. Essentially, it was decided not to pursue the matter further ('the evidence is insufficient, in our judgment, to establish satisfactorily that particular named individuals committed specific offences on identified occasions' - para. 52.35 i.e. it was the victim's word against the others); some witnesses were examined (para. 52.36) but they denied the allegations and that, it appears, was that. Note that the remit of the inquiry did not include establishing individual culpability, so the reason given for not investigating the matter further was a simple lie.

If you are not persuaded yet then consider this. The first thing that Sir Ronald Waterhouse did (p. 20 of official report) was to issue an order making it (or appearing to make it) contempt of court to identify victims of abuse or those accused of abuse 'bearing in mind (amongst other things) the wide terms of sections 1 and 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992'. But sections 1 and 2 of the Act only ban identifying victims. So we have a question. If the law does not ban identifying those accused of abuse then why was such a ban imposed here? The excuse he gave (para. 1.09) was that abusers might be deterred from giving evidence if such a ban was not imposed, but surely an enquiry of this type should have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence and, furthermore, if the judge can make it a contempt of court to identify a person accused of abuse then he can surely also make it a contempt of court to refuse to give evidence? The reasoning simply doesn't stack up. In addition, you will see below that the state has a legal obligation under the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to conduct any investigation into inhuman or degrading treatment (and I assume that child abuse qualifies as such) in a way that is capable of identifying and punishing perpetrators; and this necessarily implies that an investigation must have the power to summon those accused and make them give evidence. Sir Ronald Waterhouse therefore afforded abusers a protection that was unecessary; he was, in effect, protecting abusers - and this was the first act of the enquiry. He later acknowledged that he had no power to do what he did ('I accept that this Tribunal has no power to make an order affecting the press, apart from statute, and I make clear that no order has been made by the Tribunal under either section 4 or section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The word `direction' that appears in the material guidance is, at least partly, a misnomer.' - Appendix 4). The clear fact of the matter is that Sir Ronald Waterhouse had no power to make it contempt of court for the press to identify those accused of abuse but that he tried to mislead the press into thinking that he did. Why would a judge do that?

2. On 8/11/2012 the Channel 4 news programme (7pm) (see http://www.channel4.com/news/child-abuse-north-wales-waterhouse-inquiry-sian-griffiths) interviewed Sian Griffiths, former Head of Personnel at Clwyd Council, who was closely involved in the various enquiries. She said a number of things as follows:

Firstly, she recounted that a senior police officer (Detective Inspector Peter Ackerley of North Wales Police) had, while giving evidence to the enquiry, read out a list of names of people who the police had investigated and referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. He came to the name of a person who 'had been high up in the government and at that point Sir Ronald Waterhouse said "No, that's enough. Stop." and that was it'. Channel 4 reported that this person was a high profile public figure and is still alive.

Secondly, she recounted how one of the abusers, Gary Cooke, had, while giving evidence to the enquiry, mentioned the name of a particular person and how that person was called to appear before the enquiry. She also described how Cooke also mentioned the name of another person (a 'big name') who was not called to appear. She did not know why this 'big name' had not been called to appear before the enquiry. In an interview on BBC Radio 5 on 9/11/2012 one of the victims, Keith Gregory, said that the Waterhouse enquiry was only interested in the lower level perpetrators ('staff at the home and care workers') and ignored the high profile ones. He recounted how the names of high profile perpetrators were removed from their witness statements (by the police) and that, when giving evidence at the enquiry, they were told that they 'must stick to the statements and obviously there were no names [of the high profile perpetrators] on the statements'.

Thirdly, she recounted that an order was made (this must be by Sir Ronald Waterhouse) to destroy photographs of men abusing boys; these photographs apparently showed the faces of the men concerned (see para. 52.61-63 of the official report though it is not clear that these paragraphs relate to the photographs which were destroyed).

Fourthly, when asked what was 'the ultimate price paid by some of those boys' she said 'They died. They died.' and gave a list of names of boys who had committed suicide or died from drug overdoses or similar causes.

In an interview on BBC Radio 5 on 9/11/2012 one of the victims, Keith Gregory, said that 'most of them were members of the freemasons'. He then referred to an earlier report, called the Jillings Report, which had been pulped at the insistence of the council's insurers and which he said would 'show names'. The allegation of masonic involvement was dealt with briefly in the Waterhouse report (p. 718-720) which said at one point (para. 50.45) that 'we have received no evidence whatsoever in support of this allegation'; the point being that an enquiry is surely supposed to actively look for evidence, not wait passively for evidence to fall into its lap. It is perhaps hardly surprising that no evidence was found if none was looked for. A small point.

So, it appears that:

1. The remit of the Waterhouse Enquiry was limited (by William Hague, then Secretary of State for Wales) in a way that prevented (or allowed the prevention of) investigation of abuse by high profile individuals.
2. The police and the judge conducting the enquiry prevented the names of high profile individuals from appearing in witness statements made by the victims (i.e. they removed them) and refused to allow the victims to name such individuals when they gave evidence to the enquiry.
3. Sir Ronald Waterhouse prevented a senior police officer from naming high profile individuals and ordered the destruction of photographs which showed the faces of such individuals while they were actually abusing children (there are no possible circumstances in which the destruction of evidence by a judge can be justified and this is a clear case of perverting the course of justice; no question).
4. Many of the high profile individuals who committed the abuse were freemasons.
5. Many of the victims committed suicide or died of drug overdoses or similar causes.

So there we are. A cover up do you think? A masonic cover up possibly? Whatever you may think one thing is absolutely clear; that the judge conducting the enquiry committed serious criminal offences, including the destruction of critical evidence, which undoubtedly contributed to, if not actually led to, as a result of the failure of the state to provide an effective remedy for the victims or punishment for the offenders, the deaths of a number of children who had been put into the care of the state for their own protection. It is difficult to imagine a more heinous crime.

Oh, by the way, on the following day (9/11/2012) the BBC (you know, those people who tried to cover up the child abuse by Jimmy Savile) broadcast a news item saying that the Waterhouse Enquiry had been 'meticulous'.

I am afraid it gets worse. Read on.

Following the 2012 allegations two new investigations were announced, one (led by Mrs Justice Julia Macur) to look urgently into the terms of the original inquiry and whether it was properly constituted and one (Operation Pallial involving the police and Serious Organized Crime Agency) to look into how old claims of abuse were handled and at fresh allegations. The problem is that neither of these investigations meet the government's obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment); the first because it is not an effective investigation capable of identifying and punishing those responsible (Labita v. Italy - Application no. 26772/95 at 131), the second because it is not independent since, as Keith Gregory said in the Channel 4 News on 8/11/2012, it involves the police investigating the police (El-Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Application no. 39630/09 at 184).

The ECHR cases below show that the government has:

1. a positive obligation to protect people from inhuman and degrading treatment (i.e. not just a negative obligation not to inflict inhuman and degrading treatment), including inhuman and degrading treatment by private persons (i.e. people who are not state officials) as well as state officials;

2. a duty to carry out effective and practically independent official investigations into allegations or indications of such treatment;

3. a duty to carry out such investigations in response to complaints or where no complaint is made but where there are sufficiently clear indications of inhuman and degrading treatment;

4. a duty to carry out such investigations with 'promptness and reasonable expedition'.

5. a duty to carry out investigations that are capable of identifying and punishing those responsible (i.e. an official investigation which is not allowed to allocate blame, such as the Francis Enquiry into the Mid-Staffordhsire NHS Foundation Trust scandal, does not fulfil the government's legal obligation).

6. a duty to allow the victim to 'to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another'.

In summary:

1. the state has a positive obligation to protect people from inhuman or degrading treatment both by state officials and by private persons;

2. where there are sufficient indications (and also where the state 'ought to have been aware' - see below) of inhuman or degrading treatment of any person within its jurisdiction, either by state officials or by private persons, the state has a positive obligation to carry out an effective and independent investigation with 'promptness and reasonable expedition' which is capable of identifying and punishing those responsible and which allows the victim to to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another, which necessarily implies telling the victim of the possible breach (i.e. it is unlawful for the state to conceal a possible breach from the victim);

3. failure to carry out an effective investigation into a possible breach of article 3 may amount to a further breach of article 3 'because the actions or failures to act on the part of the judicial authorities have themselves caused such anguish to those seeking a remedy'.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-58559

CASE OF LABITA v. ITALY (Application no. 26772/95)

'120. The Court recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim. In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1517-18, §§ 52 and 53, and the Assenov and Others judgment cited above, p. 3288, § 94).

Treatment has been held by the Court to be “inhuman” because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering, and also “degrading” because it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them. In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be “inhuman” or “degrading”, the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account (see, for instance, V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX, and the Raninen v. Finland judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pp. 2821-22, § 55), but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3.

121. Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, the Klaas v. Germany judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, § 30). To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161 in fine).

122. In the instant case, the ill-treatment complained of by the applicant consisted of, on the one hand, being slapped, blows, squeezing of the testicles and baton blows and, on the other, insults, unnecessary body searches, acts of humiliation (such as being required to remain in handcuffs during medical examinations), intimidation and threats.'

....

'131. The Court considers that where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. As with an investigation under Article 2, such investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, in relation to Article 2 of the Convention, the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161; the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, § 86; and the Yaºa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2438, § 98). Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance (see paragraph 119 above), be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see the Assenov and Others judgment cited above, p. 3290, § 102).'

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-80395

CASE OF 97 MEMBERS OF THE GLDANI CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND 4 OTHERS v. GEORGIA (Application no. 71156/01)

'96. In general, actions incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention incur the liability of a contracting State only if they were inflicted by persons holding an official position. However, the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, including such treatment administered by private individuals (see Pretty, cited above, §§ 50 and 51). A positive obligation on the State to provide protection against inhuman or degrading treatment has been found to arise in a number of cases (see A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2699, § 22; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 149, ECHR 2003-XII).

This protection calls for reasonable and effective measures, including with regard to children and other vulnerable individuals (see Okkalý v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 70, ECHR 2006-... (extracts), and paragraphs 24-27 above), in order to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities were or ought to have been aware (see Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 53, 12 October 2006).

97. Furthermore, Article 3 of the Convention gives rise to a positive obligation to conduct an official investigation (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3290, § 102). Such a positive obligation cannot be considered in principle to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 151).

Thus, the authorities have an obligation to take action as soon as an official complaint has been lodged. Even in the absence of an express complaint, an investigation should be undertaken if there are other sufficiently clear indications that torture or ill-treatment might have occurred. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. A prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill-treatment may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts. Tolerance by the authorities towards such acts cannot but undermine public confidence in the principle of lawfulness and the State’s maintenance of the rule of law (see Batý and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 60, 2 November 2004; and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II).'

Directorate General of Human Rights, Council of Europe, 'The prohibition of torture - A guide to the implementation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights'

http://echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/0B190136-F756-4679-93EC-42EEBEAD50C3/0/DG2ENHRHAND062003.pdf

p.16

'Treatment has been held by the Court to be “inhuman” because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch, and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering.'

'Degrading treatment is that which is said to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority, capable of humiliating and debasing them. This has also been described as involving treatment such would lead to breaking down the physical or moral resistance of the victim, or as driving the victim to act against his will or conscience. In considering whether a punishment or treatment is “degrading” within the meaning of Article 3, regard should be had as to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3.'

p. 39

'Failure to adequately respond to allegations of violations may in and of itself give rise to a separate and discrete violation of Article 3 on the part of the judicial authorities. This can arise because the procedural aspects of Article 3 have not been fulfilled, or because the actions or failures to act on the part of the judicial authorities have themselves caused such anguish to those seeking a remedy. Judicial authorities must have the tools at their disposal to offer and give effect to effective protection to persons from prohibitive behaviour. That means that the legal system needs to be adequately structured, and used, to provide effective protection. Gaps in the legal system will leave the judicial authorities exposed to potentially violating Article 3.'

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115621

CASE OF EL-MASRI v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (Application no. 39630/09)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 December 2012

'175. The UNHCHR submitted that the right to the truth was an autonomous right triggered by gross violations, as in the case of enforced disappearances. This right was also embodied in Article 13 and woven into Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. In enforced disappearances cases, the right to the truth was a particularly compelling norm, in view of the mystery surrounding the fate and whereabouts of the victim, irrespective of the eventual reappearance of the victim. Knowing the truth about gross human rights violations and serious violations of humanitarian law afforded victims, their relatives and close friends a measure of satisfaction. The right to the truth inured to the benefit of the direct victims of the violation, as well as to their relatives and to society at large. Rights holders were entitled to seek and obtain information on various issues, namely the identity of the perpetrators, the progress and results of an investigation and the circumstances and reasons for the perpetration of violations. On the other hand, the right to the truth placed comprehensive obligations on the State, including duties (1) to carry out an effective investigation; (2) to give victims and their relatives effective access to the investigative process; (3) to disclose all relevant information to the victims and the general public; and (4) to protect victims and witnesses from reprisals and threats. Lastly, the UNHCHR argued that the right to the truth was recognised in international law (the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance) and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

....

182. The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. Such investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Corsacov v. Moldova, no. 18944/02, § 68, 4 April 2006; and Georgiy Bykov, cited above, § 60).

183. The investigation into serious allegations of ill-treatment must be both prompt and thorough. That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or to use as the basis of their decisions (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 103 and Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)). They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (see Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 104, ECHR 1999-IV, and Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000). Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 123, 11 July 2006).

184. Furthermore, the investigation should be independent from the executive (see Ogur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III, and Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 37, 20 July 2004). Independence of the investigation implies not only the absence of a hierarchical or institutional connection, but also independence in practical terms (see Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, §§ 83-84, Reports 1998-IV).

185. Lastly, the victim should be able to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another (see, mutatis mutandis, Ogur, cited above, § 92; Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, no. 46317/99, § 107, 23 February 2006; Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 106, 6 November 2008; Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 157, 17 December 2009; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 92, ECHR 2008).'

You will appreciate from what I have said that the legal system is effectively out of control. You are not a litigant able to demand your rights from them but a supplicant with no remedy against them. This is the reality of the situation. Even the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) does not really affect this situation. Sometimes the UK courts are over-ruled by the ECHR (but ECHR judges broadly share the same attitudes as UK judges) but they just take that in their stride with a shrug of the shoulders; it's no skin off their noses. Whatever the outcome they will not be held to account (and by the time it gets through the ECHR they will probably have retired anyway).

So, which judicial system do you prefer? The judicial system as it exists in the UK today, as described above, where you have no guarantee whatsoever of the outcome, other than that the need to do justice to you will almost certainly take second place to the judge's idea of the public interest, and where going to court is not only uncertain as to outcome but is a ruinously expensive process that will take years and probably cost you your home (to pay legal fees), or would you prefer a feudal baronial court, where you will be tried in an afternoon by a jury of local people (your peers) who may not know how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin but do have common sense and a sense of fair play? Has it occurred to you that you are actually worse off (vis a vis the legal system) than a feudal peasant? Bring back the bad barons! All is forgiven!

Before you answer that question may I remind you of the words of Lord Devlin, a Law Lord:

'The power that puts the jury above the law can never safely be entrusted to a single person [including a judge] or to an institution, no matter how great or how good. For it is an absolute power and, given time, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But jurors are anonymous characters who meet upon random and unexpected summons to a single task (or perhaps a few), whose accomplishment is their dissolution. Power lies beneath their feet but they tread on it so swiftly that they are not burnt.' (Lord Devlin, 'The Conscience of the Jury', Law Quarterly Review, July 1991, Vol.107, p.404.)

and the words of Thomas Jefferson:

'Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny'

The answer to the problem is that the rule of law can only be safeguarded by a jury system and by having an effective remedy against bad judges (preferably involving an axe or a length of rope). The first ensures the fairest outcome for you; the second ensures that bad judges will be held to account. In any event, the role of the judge should be severely restricted to matters of procedure and nothing more (give them an inch and they will take a mile).

The choice is yours (Well, it isn't actually but you know what I mean).

The Barons of Mordington

(Note that Peter de Mordington was almost certainly not the first baron of Mordington, he is merely the first Baron of whom we have a record.)

1. Peter de Mordington (son of William de Mordington, Chancellor of Scotland, who was probably baron), who was succeeded by his son-in-law;
2. Sir Henry de Haliburton, in right of his wife, Agnes de Mordington (d. After 25 Nov 1323), who resigned the Barony (possibly in 1318) to Robert the Bruce who granted it to;
3. Thomas Randolph, 1st Earl of Moray and Regent of Scotland (d. 1332), who was succeeded by his son;
4. Thomas Randolph, 2nd Earl of Moray (k. 1332), dsp, who was succeeded by his brother;
5. John Randolph, 3rd Earl of Moray (k. 1346), dsp, who was succeeded by his brother-in-law;
6. Patrick, 9th Earl of Dunbar (d. 1368), in right of his wife, Agnes Randolph, who was succeeded by his nephew or Sir Patrick Dunbar (d. 1356/7) in right of his wife, Isabella Randolph, who was succeeded by his son;
7. George Dunbar, 10th Earl of Dunbar (d. after 8th Sep 1422), who granted the barony in 1372 to his son-in-law;
8/1. Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith (d. 1420), who granted the barony to his second son (1st Prince Palatine);
9/2. William Douglas, who was succeeded by his elder brother:
10/3. Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith (d. before May 1441), who was succeeded by his son;
11/4. William Douglas of Morton and Whittingham, who resigned the barony in favour of his nephew;
12/5. James Douglas, 1st Earl of Morton (d. before 22nd October 1493), who was succeeded by his son;
13/6. James Douglas, 2nd Earl of Morton (d. before September 1515), who was succeeded by his son;
14/7. James Douglas, 3rd Earl of Morton (d. before 4th November 1550), who was succeeded by his son-in-law;
15/8. James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton and Regent of Scotland (executed 2nd June 1581) when the Barony was forfeited and granted to;
16/9. Esmé Stewart, 8th Earl and 1st Duke of Lennox (d. 1583), who was succeeded by his son;
17/10. Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, Duke of Richmond and Earl of Newcastle (d. 1624), who held the barony in 1585 when the forfeiture of the 4th Earl of Morton was reversed and the Barony was granted to the 4th Earl's nephew;
18/11. Archibald Douglas, 8th Earl of Angus (d. 1588), on whose death the barony devolved upon;
19/12. William Douglas, 5th Earl of Morton (d. 1606), who was succeeded by his grandson;
20/13. William Douglas, 6th Earl of Morton, who, on 13th September 1636, resigned the Barony to the King in favour of;
21/14. Thomas Ramsay of Edrington, who built Edrington House, was succeeded by his son in 1653;
22/15. Thomas Ramsay of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1658 to;
23/16. James Douglas, 3rd Lord Mordington, from whom the Barony passed in 1685 to;
24/17. Joseph Douglas of Edrington, who was succeeded by his nephew in 1773;
25/18. Joseph Douglas Watson of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1785 to;
26/19. William Marshall of Ingram and of Edrington, who was succeeded by his son in 1792;
27/20. Joseph Marshall of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1834 to;
28/21. Anthony Dickson of Edrington, who was succeeded by his niece in 1856;
29/22. Mrs Dickson Milliken or Soady of Edrington, who was succeeded by her son in 1864;
30/23. Thomas Eales Soady of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1864 to;
31/24. Henry Leck of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1864 to;
32/25. George Chirnside of Edrington, who was succeeded by his trustees in 1898;
33/26. The Trustees of George Chirnside of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1935 to;
34/27. Edrington & Co., who sold the Barony in 1939 to;
35/28. Munro Sutherland of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1949 to;
36/29. Lindsay Clark Edwards of Edrington and his son Peter Lindsay Edwards of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1962 to;
37/30. Janet Elspeth Robertson, Agnes Heatley Robertson and Ethel Greig Robertson, sisters, of Cawderstanes and Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1962 to;
38/31. Hew Airth Grant of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1963 to;
39/32. Janet Elspeth Robertson, Agnes Heatley Robertson and Ethel Greig Robertson, sisters, of Cawderstanes and Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1975 to;
40/33. Enid Ruth Thomson or Elphinston of Edrington, who sold the Barony in 1998 to;
41/34. Graham Senior-Milne (formerly Milne) of Edrington, 41st Baron of Mordington (and 34th Prince Palatine) and his spouse, Annabel.
   

‘Regalities, earldoms and lordships in early 15th-century Scotland’ - from Alexander Grant’s ‘Franchises North of the Border’ (available as a download at http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/633/). The Regality of Mordington is shown in the extreme bottom-right on the border near Berwick-upon-Tweed, as indicated. See also Edinburgh University’s ‘An Atlas of Scottish History to 1707’ (p. 207).


Lineage of Senior - A Song of Sefarad

The progenitor of this family in the United Kingdom, (Moses) Aaron Senior (d 1736), was described as a 'West Indian Jew' and owned land in Barbados. His probable father or grandfather, Joseph Senior Saraiva of Barbados (d 1694), son of Antonio Coronel (d 1665 in Hamburg), who was one of the co-founders of the Bank of Hamburg (which became part of the Reichsbank in 1875), was a direct male-line descendant of Don Abraham Senior (b 1410/12), Chief Rabbi and supreme magistrate of the Jews of Castile, and favourite of Ferdinand of Aragon (1453-1516) and Isabella of Castile (1451-1504), whose marriage in 1469 he arranged. This marriage led to the unification of the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile and, ultimately, to the formation of the modern Spain. Don Abraham also brokered a reconciliation between Isabella and her brother, Henry IV (1425-1474), by which Isabella was acknowledged as heir to the throne of Castile, and negotiated the surrender of the great castle of Segovia, which helped to end the Second Castilian Civil War (1475-9).

Christopher Columbus kneels before Ferdinand and Isabella.

As a financier, tax farmer and factor-general of the army Don Abraham also played an important role in funding and supplying the armies that drove the Moors from Spain (in fact the Crown would have been bankrupt without Jewish finance), helping to bring to a successful conclusion the 800 year long Reconquista (722-1492), the crusade against the Moors. Behind the scenes Don Abraham seems to have tried to minimize the suffering of his fellow Jews during a very difficult period. In Segovia in 1485 he intervened to prevent the rabble-rousing activities of Antonio de la Pena, a Dominican monk, against the 'Jewish wolves' who should be 'driven away by fire'. In other Spanish cities such activities had led to pogroms in which many hundreds of Jews had been murdered or forced to convert. In 1486 he interceded with the King to prevent the expulsion of the Jews from Valmaseda. In 1489 he paid, largely from his own fortune, the ransoms of 450 Jews captured at the fall of Malaga, mainly women who would otherwise have been sold into slavery.

The Moorish King, Boabdil, surrenders Granada, the last stronghold of the Moors in Spain, to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. Painting by F. Padilla.

Don Abraham also appears to have been one of the Jewish backers (led by Luis de Santangel) of Christopher Columbus' voyage of discovery to America, who he first met in Malaga in August 1487 ('Christopher Columbus', M. Kayserling, 1907, p. 42, 52-55). Such was his authority that, on one occasion in 1492, he even sued the Inquisition in order to recover property - and won. When the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 Don Abraham converted to Christianity, together with most of the close members of his family. He did this partly on account of personal pressure from Ferdinand and Isabella, partly on account of his advanced age, but mainly, it appears, on account of threats of reprisals against the Jewish community at large. Ferdinand and Isabella, with Cardinal Mendoza and the Papal Nuncio, were the sponsors (godparents) at Don Abraham's baptism, when he and his family took the name 'Coronel', and they clearly regarded the event as a triumph.

The discovery of America - 'The triumph of Columbus was the triumph of the Converso Luis de Santangel, visionary and champion of the perennial lost cause of history, the cause of the Jews.' - John Boyd Thatcher. A member of the Coronel family, Pedro Fernandez Coronel, took part in Columbus' second voyage and was appointed Constable of the Indies. Was this an attempt to establish a Jewish state in the New World?

'The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain' (1889) by Emilio Sala Frances, Museo de Bellas Artes de Granada. The Jewish man is either Don Isaac Abravanel or Don Abraham Senior. This is the moment when Torquemada, head of the Inquisition in Spain, told Ferdinand and Isabella that to accept the money that the Jews had offered to reverse the decree of expulsion would be like Judas accepting the 30 pieces of silver. According to 'Nassau William Senior' by S. Leon Levy, p. 202, 'Attended by a retinue of thirty mules, the aged Abraham Senior hastened to the palace of Alhambra from which that infamous edict had been issued in order to implore the Spanish monarchs for its revocation. Associated with him were his brother-in-law, Meir, who happened to be the King's secretary, and Abrabanel - both of who had rendered invalubale services to their country, the latter having also loaned their Majesties 1,500,000 maravedis for financing the late war. 'Thrice on my knees I besought the King', states Abrabanel himself in the preface to his commentary on Kings. 'But... the King declared he would not revoke the edict for all the wealth of the Jews. The Queen at his right hand opposed it.''

'Triptych of the Birth of Christ' - a Flemish tapestry (205 x 273 cm) given by Don Abraham Senior to Queen Isabella of Castile in 1492 after his conversion to Christianity; the oldest tapistry in the Spanish royal collection (Royal Palace of La Granja de San Ildefonso, Segovia.)

In the decades and centuries following the expulsion, branches of the family emigrated to Amsterdam, Hamburg, Brazil (Recife, Pernambuco), Curacao, the West Indies and elsewhere, usually via Portugal, where some remained; this was often to escape the Inquisition (Sephardic Jews provided the impetus for the development of the sugar industry in Barbados, which by 1660 generated more trade than all other English colonies combined). Many of these branches reverted to Judaism and re-adopted the Senior name (or the name Senior-Coronel) when it was safe to do so. Many were crypto-Jews, that is people who were officially and outwardly Catholic but who retained their Jewish faith and observed Jewish religious practices in secret. It was a common (and necessary) practice for crypto-Jews to have one or more aliases, which were often retained even after they had settled in places beyond the reach of the Inquisition. Other branches of the family remained Catholic and inter-married with non-Jewish or non-Converso families; some abandoned the name Coronel. Amongst Don Abraham's direct male-line Catholic descendants in Portugal are the Counts and Marquises of Penafiel (formerly of the Palace of Penafiel, Lisbon and the Palace of Correio-Mor, Loures, nr. Lisbon, and feudal lords of Penafiel, near Porto), which title later passed through an heiress, the first Marchesa, to the Gomes family, Brazilian diplomats, who adopted the family name of da Mata de Sousa Coutinho (the family changed its name from Coronel to da Mata Coronel, then to da Mata, and later added de Sousa Coutinho via marriage (de Sousa de Arronches being the surname of an illegitimate branch of Portuguese royal family descended from Alfonso III (1210-1279) and Coutinho being the surname of the Counts of Marialva, Marshals of Portugal, themselves descended from Alfonso Sanches, illegitimate son of Denis 'the Farmer' (1269-1325), King of Portugal).

The 18th century Palace of Correio-Mor, Loures, nr. Lisbon - built by the Coronel family.

Arms of the Marquises of Penafiel - Quarterly, 1st, da Mata (or, three bushes vert flowering of the field); 2nd and 3rd, de Sousa de Arronches (Portugal ancient quartered with de Sousa); 4th, Coutinho. The Templar cross in chief of the da Mata arms denotes membership of the Knights of Christ (formerly the Knights Templar). A unique coat of arms, being the arms of a Jewish family, quartered with the arms of a royal house (Portugal) and bearing the device of the Knights Templar. The right-hand picture is of the arms over the main gate of the Palace of Penafiel, Lisbon.

Other female-line descendants of Don Abraham Senior include the Marquises of Rodes and Counts of Lichtervelde of the Chateau de la Follie, Ecaussinnes-d’Enghien, Belgium.

Chateau de la Follie, Ecaussinnes-d’Enghien, Belgium

Descent of Joseph Senior Saraiva of Barbados (d 1694) from Don Abraham Senior of Castile:

  • Don Abraham Senior/Fernao Perez Coronel of Castile (1410/12-1493), lived at Segovia, near Madrid m (1) Dona Violante de Cabrera (near relative, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, of Andrés de Cabrera (1430-1511), 1st Marquis of Moya*) and (2) Dona Maria Sanches del Rio and had issue an eldest son;
  • Juan ('Joao') Perez Coronel (d about 1504/5), lived at Segovia, described as a 'Knight of Philip I in France' m Cataline del Rio and had issue an eldest son;
  • Inigo Lopez Coronel (b about 1490), born in Segovia m not known and had issue a second son;
  • Francisco Coronel, lived at Salvaterra, Spain, served in the army of Flanders m not known and had issue a second son;
  • Antonio Coronel (b c 1523), moved to Moncao, Portugal in 1588 m (about 1548) Isabel Dias (b about 1527) and had issue a second son;
  • Heitor Coronel (b about 1549) m (about 1574) unknown Saraiva (b about 1553) and had issue an eldest son;
  • Antonio Saraiva Coronel of Hamburg (d 1665) m Ester de Joao Ramires and had issue;
  • Joseph Senior Saraiva (d 1694 Barbados), possible father or grandfather of (Moses) Aaron Senior (b 1690/1)

*Referred to as 'el converso Andrés Cabrera' in the testament of Queen Isabella of Castile (Luis Suárez Fernández, 'Análisis del Testamento de Isabel la Católica', p. 86, 'Cuadernos de Historia Moderna', No. 13, Madrid, 1992). Eugénie, Empress of the French (1826–1920), wife of the Emperor, Napoleon III (1808-1873), was the daughter of Don Cipriano de Palafox y Portocarrero (1785-1839), 17th Marquis of Moya. The title is now held by Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart, 18th Duchess of Alba. The death of her only son, the Prince Imperial, in action against the Zulus in 1879 prevented her Jewish blood from gracing the throne of France. Violante de Cabrera may have been Violante, illegitimate daughter of Bernardo de Cabrera, son of Bernardo de Cabrera, Viscount of Cabrera (d 14/5/1466) (see here also).

Eugénie, Empress of the French.    

See José Amador de los Rios, 'Estudios históricos, politicos y literarios sobre los Judios de España', p 445; José Amador de los Rios, 'Historia social, politica y religiosa de los judios de España y Portugal', iii, p 279-296; Kayserling, 'Geschichte der Juden in Portugal', p 83 & 102, and also the pedigree prepared by the Portuguese historian, Luis de Bivar Pimentel Guerra, in 1976.

Other prominent members of the Senior/Coronel family in Europe and the United Kingdom include:

  • Don Abraham’s son-in-law, Meir Melamed (who became Fernando Nunez Coronel in 1492), was the King’s Secretary and a member of the Royal Council.
  • In 1493 Pedro Fernandez Coronel accompanied Columbus on his second voyage of discovery and was appointed ‘Lord High Constable of the Indies’.
  • Maria Coronel, a grand-daughter of Don Abraham Senior, was the second wife of (and mother of the two sons of) Juan Bravo (x 1521), the popular Spanish hero who led a revolt against the Emperor, Charles V, the War of the Communities (1520-22), the first popular revolution in history, and who was a member of the most distinguished family in Spain, the Mendoza family, Dukes of Infantado (his mother was María de Mendoza, daughter of the Count of Monteagudo).
Statue of Juan Bravo (x 1521) in Segovia
  • Diego Laínez (1512-1565), who was one of the founders of the Society of Jesus (i.e. The Jesuits), along with Ignatius of Loyola (born Íñigo López de Loyola), a Spaniard of Basque origin, Francisco Xavier from Navarre (modern Spain), Alfonso Salmeron, Nicolás Bobadilla from Spain, Peter Faber from Savoy and Simão Rodrigues from Portugal, may have been a member of the Coronel family. 'The Jesuit Order As a Synagogue of Jews: Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-Of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus', 2009, by Robert A. Maryks states (p. 58): 'There [Almazan], Loyola and Favre encountered, among others, Diego's two younger brothers, Marcos and Cristobal, who would later enter the Society. Perhaps at those occasions they also met Diego's sister, Maria Coronel, who later married Juan Hurtado de Mendoza - a member of one of the most prominent family [sic] in Castile - and bore him two sons who would follow their uncle Diego's vocation in the Society.' In other words, Diego Laínez's surname was Coronel (derived from his paternal grandmother, Dona Violante Gertrudis Coronel, buried in 1524 in the Lainez chapel in the Church of Our Lady of the Bell Tower, Almazan - using the surname of a rich or noble ancestor was common at that time). It is accepted that he was descended from a family of Converso Jews and the only family of Converso Jews with the surname Coronel were the family of Don Abraham Senior. It seems that Maria Coronel, the second wife of Juan Bravo, married Juan Hurtado de Mendoza after Juan Bravo's execution in 1521. He declined the office of Pope on the death of Pope Paul IV in 1559.
Diego Laínez (1512-1565) Ceremony at the statue of Diego Laínez in his birthplace of Almazan (Soria, Spain) in 2012, marking the 500th anniversary of his birth.
  • In 1497 Nicolao Coronel, a physician to the royal family, accompanied Isabella, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella and heir to the throne of Spain (and eldest sister of Catherine of Aragon, wife of Henry VIII), to Portugal on the occasion of her marriage to King Manuel I of Portugal. He became physician to the Portuguese royal family and his descendants were made ‘Nobles of the Royal Household’ (‘Fidalgo da Casa Real’).
  • His son, João, may have been the ‘Mestre João’ (‘Master John’) who accompanied Pedro Alvares Cabral on his voyage of 1500 and who wrote the famous letter to King Manuel I concerning the discovery of Brazil (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_Faras and pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carta_do_Mestre_ João). This possible identification has not been made before today (18/9/2013). ‘Mestre João’ has not been positively identified but he (1) described himself as a physician to King Manuel I, (2) was almost certainly a converted Sephardic Jew who had recently arrived in Portugal from Spain (we know this from his preference for writing in Spanish) and (3) signed himself ‘Johannes Emeneslau’ (which looks to me like a mis-reading or ‘mis-combining’ of initials or abbreviations appearing after his name). João, son of Nicolao Coronel, was (1) son of a physician to King Manuel I (and so may well have been a physician himself – and worked in the royal household), (2) a converted Sephardic Jew recently arrived from Spain (in 1497) and (3) known as ‘João de Leão’. Of course, thousands of Jews went from Spain to Portugal in or after 1492 but how many were called João and, of those called João, how many were in the royal household? So ‘João de Leão’ looks like a very good candidate. The expedition of 1500 was to India (Calicut), where the expedition went after the discovery of Brazil, so if ‘Mestre João’ is in fact ‘João de Leão’ this would mean that two members of the Coronel family took part in famous voyages of discovery; Pedro Fernandez Coronel with Columbus in 1493 and João de Leão with Cabral in 1500; that is, one to the West and one to the East; something which, to my knowledge, no other family has done.
  • Louis Nunez Coronel (d. 1531) was born in Segovia in the mid to late fifteenth century and was a scientist and theologian. He became a Professor at the University of Paris, and was the author of ‘Tractatus de Formatzione Syllogismorum’ (1507) and ‘Physicae Perscrutationes’ (1511), works on mechanics. He was a friend and ally of Erasmus and, from 1519, a confessor and councillor to the court of the Emperor, Charles V (“Coronel, Luis Nuñez”, Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 2008, Encyclopedia.com, 29 July 2013). He became Secretary to Alonso Manrique, Archbishop of Seville and Inquisitor-General of Spain, and later held a position at the Abbey of San Isodoro of León.
  • His brother, Antonio Nunez Coronel, also a Professor at the University of Paris, was the author of important works on logic, including 'Questiones logice, secundum viam realium et nominalium, una cum textus [Porhyrii] explanatione', (Paris, 1509), 'Expositio super libros posteriorum Aristotelis' (Paris, 1510), 'Duplex Tractatus Terminorum' (Paris, 1511), 'Prima pars Rosarii... in qua De propositione multa notanda. De materiis propositionum. De contradictoriis in obliquis. De conditionatis et conversionibus ex libro consequentiarum eiusdem assumptis. De modalibus. De propositionibus de futuro contingenti et de modo arguendi ab affirmativa ad negativam (Paris, 1512), 'Secunda pars Rosarii logices... continens septem capitula, primum de suppositionibus, secundum de generibus suppositionum, tertium de relatavis, quartum de regulis suppositionum, quintum de ascensu et descensu, sextum de ampliationibus, septimum de appellationibus' (Paris, 1512), 'Tractatus Syllogismorum' (Paris, 1517). According to Wikipedia (under 'John Major', accessed 24/1/2014) he taught both John Calvin (see Parker T. H. L., 'John Calvin: A Biography', Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, p. 28) and (probably) Ignatius Loyola at the Collège de Montaigu (University of Paris), two of the most important figures of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation and thus in European and world history. Under the leadership and tutelage of John Major (or Mair) (1467-1550), Antonio Coronel was part of that 'brilliant and diverse group of men' of the University of Paris (Ashworth E. J., 'Language and Logic in the Post-Medieval Period', Springer, 1974, p. 7) who were the fount of human rights law, including the rights to liberty and property of the indigenous peoples of America. From 1519 he was, with his brother (Louis Nunez Coronel above), a confessor and councillor to the court of the Emperor Charles V.
  • Paul Nunez Coronel (d. 1534), who converted to Christianity, was Professor of Hebrew at the University of Salamanca and was a co-author of the Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible for the first polyglot (multi-lingual) Bible, the Complutensian Polyglot Bible of 1514-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complutensian_Polyglot), one of the sources of the King James Bible, 'the most influential version of the most influential book in the world, in what is now its most influential language'.
  • Another branch of the Coronel family in the female line (the d’Evora e Viega family) became Marquises of Sao Payo in Portugal. They were also enormously wealthy and were ancestors, in the female line, of the Marquises of Rodes and Counts of Lichtervelde in Belgium. They also remained Catholic.
  • Solomon Senior/Juan Perez Coronel was the right-hand man of (and almost certainly related to - via the Benveniste family) Joseph Nasi, appointed Duke of Naxos and the Seven Islands (Duke of the Aegean), Count of Andros and Lord of Tiberias by the Sultan, Selim II (1524-1574). Joseph Nasi encouraged the revolt of the Dutch against Spanish rule, which led to the 80 Years War (1568-1648), prompted the Sultan to make war on Venice and the Christian maritime powers of the Mediterranean (this led to the Battle of Lepanto in 1571) and to seize Cyprus (of which it was intended he would become Viceroy) and attempted the Jewish resettlement of the Holy Land (C. Roth, ‘The Duke of Naxos: Of The House of Nasi,’, (1948), p. 87). Interestingly, Joseph Nasi was very probably the basis of Marlowe’s play ‘The Jew of Malta’, on which Shakespeare based his ‘Merchant of Venice’; Joseph Nasi was also behind an attempt to blow up the Venice Arsenal.
  • His son, Francisco Coronel (or Coronello), administered the Duchy of Naxos (i.e. the Aegean) on behalf of Joseph Nasi and defended it against the Venetian fleet in 1571.
  • Diego Teixeira Sampayo/Abraham Senior Teixeira (d. 1666), a descendant of Don Abraham Senior in the female line, whose mother had been governess to King Sebastian of Portugal (1554-78), was ennobled at Anvers (Antwerp) in 1643 (with the arms of the Marquises of Sao Payo), having travelled from Portugal in that year. He later settled in Hamburg, where he was known simply as the 'rich Jew'. He rode in an ornate carriage upholstered with velvet, had liveried servants, and kept a princely house, which, in 1654, was for some time the residence of Queen Christina of Sweden, to whom he had been recommended by the Spanish ambassador, Don Antonio Pimentel (see the portrayal of him – Don Antonio - as the lover of Queen Christina in the 1933 film, ‘Queen Christina’, starring Greta Garbo). At his intercession in 1657 King Frederick III of Denmark granted the Jews privileges, which were later confirmed by King Christian V. For several years he was the head of the Spanish-Portuguese community in Hamburg, and at his son's wedding he presented the congregation with a ewer and a basin of silver plated with gold, while in 1659 he contributed 15,000 marks for the erection of a synagogue. He supplied the copper roofing for the great Church of St. Michael in Hamburg, and when the elders asked for his bill he requested them to accept it receipted without payment (Jewish Encyclopaedia under ‘Teixeira’).
  • His son, Don Manuel Texeira/Isaac Haim Senior Texeira/Isaac Senior (1625-1705), left Lisbon with his father in 1643. He was resident minister from the Court of Sweden to the City of Hamburg (1661-1687/9) and was a great favourite of Queen Christina of Sweden (1626-89, abdicated 1654) who, in 1661, lived for a year in his house in Hamburg. He and Queen Christina intervened in the expulsion of the Jews from Vienna in 1670 (which was reversed in 1673). Don Manuel must have removed to Amsterdam before 1699, since in that year he was head of the Spanish-Portuguese congregation in that city (Jewish Encyclopaedia under ‘Teixeira’).
  • David Senior/Duarte Saraiva Coronel (b. about 1575 in Portugal, d. 1650 in Brazil) was a leading member of the Jewish community in Recife, Brazil, in the early to mid-1600s, and its richest member, where he developed and owned sugar plantations. The first synagogue in the Americas, the Kahal Zur Israel (Rock of Israel) Synagogue, was initially based in his house (Morasha.com, Issue 32, April 2001). Interestingly, another branch of the family settled in Curacao, where they invented the well-known orange-based liqueur, Curacao of Curacao, which is still made in their factory today.
  • María Coronel y Arana (1602-1665), Abbess of Ágreda, Spain, better-known as the Venerable María de Jesús de Ágreda or ‘The Lady in Blue’ (sometimes also ‘The Blue Nun’ and ‘The Flying Nun’) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_de_%C3%81greda), was very probably of the family. She was the daughter of Don Francisco Coronel and his wife Catalina de Arana, both of Ágreda, who were described as noble but humble. According to http://www.desertusa.com/mag08/jan08/ladyinblue.html‘She had descended on her father's side from a Jewish convert, or "converso", who had served as the chief tax collector for the Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, after they had energized the Inquisition primarily for the purpose of persecuting the Jewish people in Spain.’ This is Don Abraham Senior. Professor José Vilahomat, Professor of Spanish at Hendrix College, Conway, Arizona, citing Kendrick, T D, 'Mary of Agreda: The Life and Legend of a Spanish Nun' (London, Broadway House, 1967, pp. 8-11) states, in his 2004 paper 'Sister Maria de Jesus Agreda: The authority of faith', that Francisco Coronel was 'of Jewish descent' - and the only Jewish Coronel family was the Senior/Coronel family. Marilyn Fedewa, author of 'Maria of Agreda: Mystical Lady in Blue' states in a 2004 article in MiGente, 'Mel Gibson's Spanish Connection', that 'Like her countrywoman Teresa of Avila, Agreda's own ancestors were Jewish.'



    She was the authoress of the 8-volume ‘The Mystical City of God’ of which Father Laurent wrote 'It is under the dictation of the Mother of Jesus Christ that she retraces the mortal life of the Queen of Heaven; so that this work, fallen from the pen of a simple girl without acquired knowledge, and living in the obscurity of a cloister, is perhaps, the most extraordinary, and the most astonishing book that ever issued from mortal hands.'

    'When Philip IV, King of Spain, heard that Mother Mary of Jesus had written a life of the Virgin Mary, he requested a copy from her. At first she was unwilling, but finally yielded to his entreaty. He was astonished at the depth of doctrine it contained, and submitted it to eminent theologians for examination. One of them said that "he would wager upon a whole room full of theologians, that this woman possessed the divine science."' - Doctor Carlos E. Castañeda, Catholic historian.

    'Whoever shall read this work with good will shall become learned; and whosoever shall 'pray' and meditate on it, will desire sanctity.' - Rev. Andrew Mendo, S.J., Professor of the University of Salamanca, quoted by Doctor Carlos E. Castañeda, Catholic historian.

    'P.D. Diegus de Silva, Abbot of the order of St. Benedict and Bishop of Guardia, delegated by King Philip IV to examine the first edition of the Mystical City of God, seems to us to sum up the total of all these praises in this sentence: "With the exception of Sacred Scripture, the heavenly wisdom which it contains has never before been revealed to mortals."' - Doctor Carlos E. Castañeda, Catholic historian.

    Notable also is the high recommendation of the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, Apostolic Legate and Primate of Germany, in 1885: 'According to the decrees of Pope Innocent XI and Clement XI the book known as 'Ciudad de Dios' written by the Venerable Servant of God, Maria de Jesus, may be read by all the faithful.' and 'A number of episcopal approbations, the recommendations of four renowned universities, namely, of Toulouse, Salamanca, Alcala and Louvain, and of prominent members of different orders, coincide in extolling the above-named work. The learned and pious Cardinal D'Aguirre says that he considers all the studies of fifty years of his previous life as of small consequence in comparison with the doctrines he found in this book, which in all things are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and Councils of the Church. The Venerable Superior-General of St. Sulpice, Abbe Emery, adds: "Only since I read the revelations of Mary of Agreda do I properly know Jesus and His Holy Mother." We therefore do not hesitate in granting our episcopal approbation to "Ciudads de Dios" and wish to recommend it to the faithful and especially to our clergy.'

    His Holiness Pius XI, on 29 April 1929, told the publisher of 'The City of God' in a private address: "You have done a great work in honor of the Mother of God. She will never permit herself to be outdone in generosity and will know how to reward a thousandfold. We grant the Apostolic Benediction to all readers and promoters of 'The City of God.'"

    In 1900 a devout lay woman sought to spread the "science of the saints" by publishing some verbatim extracts from 'The City of God'. She informed Pope Leo XIII of the project, and the great Pontiff not only gave her the Apostolic Blessing but, amazingly, allowed her book to be "printed by the presses of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda in Rome". A few months later it was observed by a Canadian diocesan journal: "The reserve which is ordinarily maintained on the subject of revelations really no longer has any reason to exist in relation to The Mystical City, since His Holiness Leo XIII has been so good as gladly to encourage the project of spreading among the faithful the science of the saints which is contained in that heavenly life of the Mother of God."

    ‘The Mystical City of God’' was one of the two main non-Biblical sources used in the production of Mel Gibson's 2004 film,
    'The Passion of The Christ'. The other source was Anne Catherine Emmerich's 'The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ'.

    The process of her beatification (declaring her 'Blessed' - the step between being declared 'Venerable' and being canonized as a saint) began in 1673 and is not yet complete. The main reason for the reluctance of the Church to complete the process seems to be a concern, expressed by Pope Benedict XIV (reigned 1740-1758), that it would result in ‘The Mystical City of God’ being considered to be the '5th Gospel' of the New Testament. According to Marilyn H. Fedewa, in her 'Maria of Agreda: Mystical Lady in Blue' (p. 257), every Pope, on his accession to the Throne of St. Peter, reads a note (or 'Judicium'), prepared by Pope Benedict XIV about Maria de Jesus of Ágreda, to the effect that the Church should avoid possible turmoil by not taking sides in the matter (i.e. the Church should neither approve or disapprove of 'The Mystical City of God'). But if the work is accepted as divinely inspired (if not actually divinely dictated, as the authoress stated), as it has been by numerous weighty authorities, then it should be given its proper place in the canon of the works of the Church. It is clear that she would have been canonized were it not for the Church's reservations concerning 'The Mystical City of God', since she qualifies for sainthood on the grounds of the number of well-attested miracles attributed to her (as well as the incorruptibility of her body, which is taken as another sign of sainthood); these reservations are all the more perplexing given that the two great messages that she proclaimed to the world, the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, have both subsequently become official dogma of the Church (
    1854 and 1869-70). A third dogma, that of the Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix, has been described as 'The Church's Unused Weapon' and is supported by over 500 cardinals and bishops from all over the world.

    She is best known for having converted certain Indian tribes of New Mexico/Texas, including the Jumanos, by means of bilocation (being in two places at once – she described herself bilocating to America over 500 times, sometimes several times a day). She never left her convent but was able to accurately describe many exact details of her visits to New Mexico/Texas, including people (a one-eyed Indian chief called Tuerto for instance) and events which could only have been known to someone who had actually been there (and were independently confirmed by such people). In addition, the Indians of these tribes described the visits of a 'Lady in Blue' who came down from the sky and who (from her clothes) clearly belonged to the same order as Maria de Jesus de Ágreda and was also young and beautiful (as she was). It was said by the Indians that the morning after her last visit they found the countryside covered in blue flowers as a memento of her; the 'bluebonnet', which became the state flower of Texas. She wrote the first accurate description of the appearance of the earth from space.

    'That Agreda really and truly visited America many times is attested to in the logs of the Spanish Conquistadors, the French explorers, and the identical accounts of many Indian tribes. Every authentic history of the Southwest of the United States records this mystic phenomenon, unparalleled in the entire history of the world.... Of the two great landings in America in 1620 - the Pilgrims in the north at Plymouth, Massachusetts, and Agreda in the south - the mystical one has, and will yet have, far greater influence upon the history of the world.' - Doctor Carlos E. Castañeda, Catholic historian. Spanish is now the most widely-spoken language in the USA.

    She was martyred twice by one Indian tribe who shot her with arrows and left her for dead. 'Another written testimony to the presence of Mary of Agreda among the Indians of Arizona comes from the record book of Captain Mateo Mange, who traveled with Jesuit priests Eusebio Francisco Kino and Adamo Gil on the expedition to discover the Colorado and Zila Rivers in 1699. Once, when speaking with some very old Indians, the explorers asked them if they had ever heard their elders speak about a Spanish captain passing through their region with horses and soldiers. They were seeking information about the expedition of Don Juan de Oñate in 1606. The Indians told them that they could remember hearing of such a group from the old people who were already dead. Then they added - without any question to prompt them - that when they were children a beautiful white woman, dressed in white, brown and blue, with a cloth covering her head, had come to their land. Mange recounts more of what the Indians told him: “She had spoken, shouted [at] and harangued them … and showed them a cross. The nations of the Colorado River shot her with arrows, leaving her for dead on two occasions. Reviving, she disappeared into the air. They did not know where her house and dwelling was. After a few days, she returned again and then many times after to preach to them.” This would concur with the report of Fr. Benevides, who had interviewed Mother Mary of Agreda in her convent. She told him that on several occasions the Indians had turned on her and shot arrows at her, leaving her for dead. She felt the pain of the attacks, but when she would come to herself later in the convent in Agreda, there was no sign of the wounds. Mange further notes that the Indians of San Marcelo had told them this same story five days earlier, although at that time they had not believed it. But the fact that they heard the same thing repeated in a place some distance away made them begin to suspect that the woman was Mother Mary of Jesus of Agreda. The missionaries were acquainted with her life and work, and knew from Fr. Benavides’ Memorials that during the years 1620-1631 she had preached to the Indians of North America.' (See Nancy P. Hickerson, 'The Visits of the 'Lady in Blue': An Episode in the History of the South Plains, 1629', Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 67-90; http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630394; Damian Massanet, Letter of Fray Damian Massanet to Don Carlos de Siguënza, in Bolton, Herbert Eugene Bolton (ed.), 'Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 1542-1706' (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916), pp. 347-38; www.americanjourneys.org/aj-018/; W. Donahue, 'Mary of Agreda and the Southwest United States', p. 310. as quoted
    here.)



    Mission Nuestra Señora de la Purísima Concepción de Acuña (also
    Mission Concepcion), San Antonio, Texas (originally Mission Nuestra Señora de la Purísima Concepción de Ágreda).

    The oldest church of the Immaculate Conception in the United States, and (according to some) the oldest unrestored church in the United States,
    Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception de Acuña at San Antonio, Texas, was originally named 'Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception de Ágreda' in honour of María de Jesús de Ágreda, who was a nun of the Order of the Immaculate Conception. In 1760 the 'Spanish Borderlands' (Florida, Georgia, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) were placed under the patronage of 'Mary Immaculate' (the Virgin Mary) by Pope Clement XIII and later, in 1846, the Virgin Mary was made Patroness (Patron Saint) of the United States with Papal approval, eight years before the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception became official church dogma in 1854; whereby the United States became 'The Land of Mary Immaculate'. The national shrine is at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. 'The Land of Mary Immaculate' therefore traces its origins to a church named after María de Jesús de Ágreda, named, in turn, after the bilocation visits of that nun to the Indians of Texas/New Mexico. Furthermore, the oldest Madonna in the United States (older than the United States itself) was brought to Santa Fe in 1625 by Father Alonso Benavides, the priest who indentified María de Jesús de Ágreda as the 'Lady in Blue' who visited the Indians. This Madonna was originally known as 'Our Lady of the Rosary' but was renamed 'Our Lady of the Rosary: La Conquistadora' (that is, 'Our Lady of the Conquest' or 'Our Lady of Conquering Love') in honour of the peaceful reconquest of the area following the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, which is credited to her intervention. 'La Conquistadora' was rescued from a burning church during the Pueblo Revolt and was kidnapped and held for ransom (but later recovered) in 1973; she has survived wars, revolutions, fire and kidnap. She was crowned by Cardinal Spellman in 1954 and was granted a Papal Crown in 1960. An annual procession is held in her honour in Santa Fe and is the oldest religious procession in the United States. See Fray Angelico Chavez, 'La Conquistadora, The Autobiography of an Ancient Statue' (Sunstone Press, 2012), Jaima Chevalier, 'La Conquistadora' (Sunstone Press, 2010) and Sue Houser, 'La Conquistadora' (Sunstone Press, 2011).



    'La Conquistadora', Queen of New Mexico, the most important religious symbol in the United States, in procession in Santa Fe in 2012. The annual procession is the oldest religious procession in the United States.



    Album cover for
    'La Conquistadora' (2008) by the The Krayolas, 'San Antonio’s legendary Tex-Mex powerpop and garage rock band'.

    It is necessary to understand the importance of the
    Pueblos (native towns) of New Mexico/Texas and the role played by the Catholic Church (mainly the Franciscans) in protecting the native peoples and helping them to survive as semi-autonomous communities until the present day. Although there were undoubtedly many instances of abuse of the rights of the native people by missionaries, in general they seem to have done their best to protect the natives from exploitation by settlers (by opposing land seizures and the imposition of forced labour for instance). As stated by Archbishop Michael Sheehan in his "Seeds of Struggle: Harvest of Hope" (1998): "The eminent Pueblo scholar and historian Professor Joe Sando... notes that the Pueblo Indians have fared much better under the Spanish than the Indians on the east coast of the United States. There are no Indian markets in Boston or New York! There Indian culture was pretty well destroyed. Here in New Mexico, Indian culture still flourishes." The main work of conversion of the Pueblo Indians was carried out by Fray Alonso Benevides and his fellow Franciscans in the 1620s and 1630s, who, in converting many thousands of Indians, recognized the miraculous work carried out by María de Jesús de Ágreda in preparing those Indians for acceptance of the Faith (not that there wasn't strong resistance in some communities). In so far as the conversion of the Indian peoples can be attributed to María de Jesús de Ágreda and in so far as the Catholic Church subsequently protected the Indian peoples, the survival of those peoples down to the present day must be laid at her feet.



    Taos Pueblo, the oldest continuously inhabited community in the United States.



    Francisca Chiwiwi,
    Isleta Pueblo, circa 1925. It was at Isleta that Fray Alonso Benevides was told by the Jumanos of the visits of the 'Lady in Blue'.

    María de Jesús de Ágreda became a spiritual and political advisor to King Philip IV of Spain and exchanged over 600 letters with him. He said of her 'Except for Sor [Sister] Maria's counsel, the unity of Spain would never have been preserved.' She was involved in the negotiations preceding the Treaty of the Pyrenees of 1659, which led to the marriage of Louis XIV to Maria Theresa and eventually to the Bourbon succession to the throne of Spain and the War of Spanish Succession of 1701-14 (when France wanted to make peace the first person they approached was María de Jesús de Ágreda).

    Of the many miracles ascribed to her, the most significant was the occasion when she raised a person from the dead in front of terrified witnesses, including the local priest. She swore these witnesses to secrecy and the written testimony of the priest only came to light after her death.

    The latest miracle ascribed to her is described by Marilyn Fedewa as follows: 'On February 20, 1867, Dr. E. Hanon, M.D., of Nivelles, Belgium, wrote the following: "Mary Catherine Plas of Strombeck, [known] in religion [as] Sor M. Colette of the monastery of Conceptionists in this city, aged thirty-two years, has been under my treatment since March 1863." Dr. Hamon described the progressive inflammation and deterioration of Sor Colette's dorsal vertebrae, resulting in muscle deterioration, grave pain and palpitations, and ultimately complete paralysis. Additionally, the patient vomited blood and could retain no food. By the end of 1866, further treatment was deemed futile, and Sor Colette prayed unsuccessfully for an end to her suffering through death. Then on January 27, 1867, the abbess and all the nuns, including Sor Colette, began a novena in honour of Sor María of Ágreda and her inspiring work in Mystical City of God. Each day, for nine consecutive days, they prayed fervently that if it was God's will, Sor Colette would be cured through the merits of Sor María. Throughout the nine days, Sor Colette held in her hands a small image of Sor María. On Wednesday, February 6, 1867, the convent's spiritual director noted Sor Colette's grievous condition. He heard her confession, believing it to be her last. The abbess, firm in her faith for a cure, nevertheless instructed two nuns on the following day to bring Sor Colette to the choir to give thanks. On February 7, the two nuns arrived at Sor Colette's room to find her up and fully dressed. Understandably thinking that she would still be weak, the nuns convinced her to sit on a chair, on which they would carry her downstairs to the choir. Soon, however, Sor Colette realized the full extent of her cure. She descended the stairs on her own, walked into the choir, and knelt before the altar fully recovered." The Rev. Mother Abbess assured me", wrote Dr. Hanon, "that no remedy had been applied since my treatment had ceased... Sor M. Colette's health was so perfect that on the following day she was able to resume her usual occupations, and to recite the office with her sisters both by day and by night. . . . I am willing to affirm this declaration by a solemn oath."'

    The death of María de Jesús de Ágreda is described as follows:

    'When she was given Extreme Unction, the serenity of her spirit shone on her countenance, which became beautiful and smiling. She gave her last advice and blessing to each sister saying: "I recommend to you, virtue, virtue, virtue." On the Feast of Pentecost at the very moment of the day (nine o'clock) when, according to tradition, the Holy Ghost descended upon the Virgin Mary and the Apostles, she, who had enjoyed so many visions, was called to the eternal Beatific Vision. At the moment she died, she was seen radiant with heavenly light in a church in Agreda by John Carrillo, a teacher who frequently communicated with the Venerable María and to whom she had foretold her death. He had just received Communion in the Church of St. Julian of the Franciscan Fathers, when he saw the servant of God surrounded by a globe of light ascending toward heaven. María died at the age of 63 years on the 24th of May, 1665, having been a nun 46 years, 35 of which she was Abbess. Her sisters testify that in her last moments they heard a most sweet voice repeat: "Come, come, come." At the last call, Sor María de Jesus de Agreda breathed forth her soul. Most Rev. Joseph Zimenez Samaniego relates that at the precise hour of her death, Sor María was seen ascending into heaven by persons of eminent perfection in several places far distant from Agreda - thus fulfilling in a pre-eminent degree the promise of the Holy Spirit regarding His Spouse, the Virgin Mary: "Qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt." ["Who elucidates me shall have eternal life"] - Ecclus. 24:31' - Doctor Carlos E. Castañeda, Catholic historian.

    'It was often repeated in Ágreda that Teresa of Avila had prophesied that the town would produce a most fragrant flower for the garden of the Lord.' - Colahan, Clark Andrew, 'The Visions of Sor María de Ágreda: Writing Knowledge and Power', Univsersity of Arizona Press, 1994, p. 13.

    She was the subject of a 'Da Vinci Code'-style novel,
    'The Lady in Blue', by the leading Spanish novelist and New York Times Best-Seller List author, Javier Sierra, which won the 2008 International Latino Book Award for the best English-edition historical novel. In this novel the Coronel family are portrayed (p. 307-8) as hereditary angels of the lineage of Jesus (the author cannot have been aware that Maria de Ágreda actually was descended from the House of David, being of the family of the Exilarch, Don Abraham Senior).

    Interestingly, the arms of her family (supposedly Coronel but, in fact, apparently derived from the arms of the
    Order of the Immaculate Conception), as shown above the main door of her convent, are not listed amongst any of the arms attributed to the Coronel family at heraldicahispana.com. However, a coat of arms (or what looks like a coat of arms) can be seen through the glass of the sarcophagus containing her uncorrupted body (in the Convent of the Order of the Immaculate Conception in Ágreda), which looks rather like the arms of Coronel (five eagles displayed), but these arms may not be related to the sarcophagus, and even if they are, may not be five eagles (it is difficult to tell what they are - possibly the five wounds of Christ). See also http://www.mariadeagreda.org/rdr.php. She should not be confused with another Maria Coronel, Maria Fernández Coronel (1334-1409) (see http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Coronel), whose uncorrupted body is at the Convent of St. Agnes, Seville, who was a member of the Coronel family (who may have been Jewish in origin) from which Don Abraham Senior/Coronel took his name and arms, being the great niece of Maria Alonso Coronel (d. 1332), ancestor of the Dukes of Medina-Sidonia, whose tomb with the Coronel arms can be seen at http://www.genealogics.org/showmedia.php?mediaID=5726&medialinkID=6033.
Arms (apparently) of the family of María Coronel y Arana. Arms (or what appears to be arms) beside the sarcophagus of María Coronel y Arana. Five eagles? Arms of Don Abraham Senior or Coronel and his descendants.
   
María de Jesús de Ágreda (María Coronel y Arana) converting the Indians of New Mexico. 'You can't explain it, but you can't explain it away.' María de Jesús de Ágreda (María Coronel y Arana) with the Holy Mother and Child.
   
Sarcophagus containing the uncorrupted body of María de Jesús de Ágreda. The arms can be seen behind the sarcophagus.
Bluebonnets, Ennis, Texas.
The Convent of the Order of the Immaculate Conception, Ágreda
Ágreda today, with the convent on the left behind the trees.
Statue of María de Jesús de Ágreda outside the Provincial Government building, Calle Caballeros, Soria, Spain. The quill pen refers to her authorship of 'The Mystical City of God'.
King Charles II of Spain and Don Juan José of Austria praying to María de Jesús de Ágreda in 1677.
Statue of María de Jesús de Ágreda outside the Convent of the Order of the Immaculate Conception in Ágreda, Soria, Spain.
An altar cloth created by María de Jesús de Ágreda showing flora and fauna that she encountered during her bilocation visits to New Mexico and Texas. The cloth shows what appears to be a Hoopoe, which does not occur in that part of the world. However, there is a bird native to that area called the Northern Flicker, which (uniquely for a woodpecker) also feeds frequently on the ground like a Hoopoe and which could easily be mistaken for a Hoopoe by a non-expert.
Pilgrims from Spain visiting a monument in 2012 erected by the Concho River in San Angelo, Texas, which commemorates the mission to the Jumano Indians established following María de Jesús de Ágreda's bilocation visits to that tribe. The inscription reads: '1632-1966, Memorial, The Reverend Fray Juan de Ortega established a mission near this site for the Jumano Indians, 1632. Erected by Texas Society Colonial Dames XVII Century.'
The original blue cloak of María de Jesús de Ágreda in the Convent of the Order of the Immaculate Conception in Ágreda, Soria, Spain. Numerous miracles have been attributed to threads of the cloak distributed around the world by the nuns of the order.
The altar in the Convent of the Order of the Immaculate Conception in Ágreda, Soria, Spain. The panel at the front of the altar table shows María de Jesús de Ágreda at her desk writing 'The Mystical City of God' at the dictation of the Holy Mother. Behind the altar María de Jesús de Ágreda stands beside and below the Holy Mother in a sunburst.
  • Hernando de los Ríos Coronel may have been a member of the family (in the female line) but I have no evidence of a connection other than his last name (which is the name of his mother); his antecedents are unknown. He was a soldier and military leader, explorer, navigator, cartographer, mathematician, scientist (he invented, inter alia, an astrolabe and a device for converting sea water to fresh water), administrator (Factor-General in the Philippines), representative of the Philippines in the Royal Court of Spain (Procurator-General), author (of a 'Memorial' of 1621 and extensive sea-logs of his journeys - there are 200 documents written by him in the Archivo General de Indias in Seville) and eventually a priest. Professor John Newsome Crossley, in his 'Hernando de los Ríos Coronel and the Spanish Philippines in the Golden Age' (Ashgate, 2011) says that he was a selfless, even fearless individual, prepared to stop the abuses of superiors and protect indigenous people from arbitrary exploitation (pp. 80, 156); that he was 'the single most important person of his time from the Philippines' (p. xii) and that 'without him the Philippines might well have been lost to the Dutch or swapped for Brazil, or, even worse perhaps, the Islands could have been completely forgotten by Spain. But they were not. What mattered most to him, and he was quite explicit about this, was that he had always done his duty, to king and to God, and thereby to his fellows, without fear or favour' (p. 181). In 1593, on behalf of the then Governor (Luis Pérez Dasmariñas), he supervised the making of the famous Marian icon 'Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary of La Naval de Manila', now in Santo Domingo Church, Quezon City, Philippines, which was credited with five miraculous naval victories over the Dutch in 1646 (La Naval de Manila). She was granted a canonical crown by Pope Pius X in 1906.
'Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary of La Naval de Manila'
Hernando de los Ríos Coronel overseeing the creation of Our Lady.
  • Sir Augustine Coronel-Chacon was a Portuguese Jew who was one of the founders of the Jewish community in London but he later converted to Christianity. He supported Charles II during his exile and was the first to advocate the marriage of Charles II to Catherine of Braganza, who introduced tea drinking to England. He was the first English Jew to be knighted (but after he had converted). Critically, Catherine of Braganza’s dowry included the port of Bombay (Mumbai) and it was Bombay that provided England with the critical toe-hold in India that led to British domination in India, the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. Thus it can be said that it was a Jew who ultimately provided the key to the British Empire in India. (Le Neve, 'Pedigrees of Knights', p. 145).
  • A branch of the Senior family (who later took the name Husey-Hunt, of Compton Castle, Compton Pauncefoot, Somerset (recently on the market for £22 million) – but whose connection to the Senior/Coronel family has not yet been proved) was granted an estate of 2000 acres in Jamaica in 1690 by King William III following his seizure of the English throne in 1688 (House of Lords Proceedings 1831-32, Appendix to CCCVI-CCCVII). It is likely that this grant was effectively the repayment of a debt, which would probably mean that the Senior family were backers of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (other Jews certainly were, as shown below).
  • A member of the Coronel family was sent by the Sultan (presumably Mahmud I) as Envoy Extraordinary to the Empress, Maria Theresa (1717-1780), leading to the reversal of her decree of expulsion of the Jews from Bohemia in 1745 (Jewish Encyclopaedia under ‘Amigo, Meir’ and Encyclopaedia Judaica under ‘Bohemia’).
Luís Gomes da Mata Coronel, 5th Correio-Mor (1606-1607), first member of the Coronel family to be Correio-Mor (Postmaster-General). Antônio Gomes da Mata Coronel, 6th Correio-Mor (1607-1641), dated 1630-40. Painting in Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga. Luís Gomes da Mata, 7th Correio-Mor (1641-1674), nephew of 6th Correio-Mor. Painting at the National Palace of Sintra. Duarte de Sousa da Mata Coutinho (correctly Duarte de Sousa Coutinho da Mata I think), 8th Correio-Mor (1674-1696), great-grandfather of the 1st Count of Penafiel. Painting at the National Palace of Sintra.

(MOSES) AARON SENIOR (d 1736), jeweller of St. James, Westminster and plantation owner in Barbados and elsewhere, of Rathbone Place, London, and later of Red Lyon (or Lion) Square, Holborn, London, is the earliest traceable member of this branch of the Sephardic Senior family in the United Kingdom. He was a Jew who converted to Christianity and was naturalised by Act of Parliament 12 Sep 1723 (Patent Roll 10 Geo 1 part 3 No 11). He had three children, Abraham (d 1769), Rachel (d 1766 - memorial in Hoddesdon church) and Henrietta Jemima Elizabeth (d 1769 - memorial in Hoddesdon church), before he married, 4 May 1727 at Bromley, his second* or third wife, Elizabeth Baldrick (d 1769 - memorial in Hoddesdon church), née Halsey** (who m, thirdly in 1739, Charles Hutton), third cousin once removed, through her grandmother, Mary Vincent, of William Pitt (1708-1778), Prime Minister and 1st Earl of Chatham, by whom he had issue,

*His first wife was possibly called Sarah. See Bevis Marks records for 1720 for marriage of Sarah Senior Coronel and Moses Aron Senior Coronel (Bevis Marks Pt II - 255).
**Her mother, Elizabeth Chitty (later Lockman, formerly Sheldon, formerly Halsey, formerly Caryll), née Evans, was responsible for the prosecution in 1725 of the then
Lord High Chancellor, Thomas Parker, 1st Earl of Macclesfield, for high crimes and misdemeanours (‘A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Misdemeanours etc.’, Vol. XVI, p. 767) arising from the theft of over £24,000 (over £3 million in today’s money) by a Master in Chancery.

Red Lion Square, Holborn, London - as it was (looking east).

1a NASSAU THOMAS SENIOR, of whom we treat

Pylewell House, near Lymington, in about 1830. Pylewell House today.

2a Ascanius William Senior (bapt 6 Feb 1728; d 1789), HEICS*, of Tewin Place, Herts, later of Pierrepont Lodge, Frensham, Surrey (1771-77), later of Pylewell House, Lymington, Hants (1780-87) and latterly of Canon Hill House, Bray, Berks (1787-89) and also of Stratford Place, Marylebone; named after his maternal grandmother's (Elizabeth née Evans) fourth (possibly fifth) husband, Ascanius Christopher Lockman (d 1741) of Richmond; HEICS 1753-66; Clerk to the Court of Requests 1756-60; Import Warehouse Keeper 1760-65; in the Militia at the siege of Fort William, Calcutta 1756, which led to the 'Black Hole of Calcutta'; Chief of Cossimbazar, principal port of West Bengal, 1765-66; High Sheriff of Hampshire 1777-78; granted arms (to him and the descendants of his father) 26 Mar 1767 under the hands and seals of Garter King of Arms and Clarenceux King of Arms. He m, firstly in 1762, Helen (bapt. 24 Jun 1733 d 1765 India), daughter of John Jekyll of St. Andrew's, Holborn, of the same family as Gertrude Jekyll (1843-1932), the noted gardener, by whom he had issue,

*'HEICS' means 'Honourable East India Company Service'

Arms granted to Ascanius William Senior in 1767 (an image of part of the original grant).

1b Helen (b 18 Oct 1763; d 3 Mar 1837), who m John Anstey (d 25 Nov 1819), barrister, and had issue Christopher John, William Jekyll (m 1799 Balbina Franchi and had issue), John Thomas (m Charlotte Filmer and had issue), Charles Alleyne (m Ann Townsend and had issue), George, Helen and Caroline (see Ruvigny, 'The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal', Mortimer volume, p. 631 et seq., being a supplement to the Essex volume, for details of their descendants; John Anstey was a descendant of Isabel Plantagenet (d 1484), Countess of Essex and Eu)

He m, secondly 5 May 1768 at St. George's, Hanover Square, Charlotte (1736-1811, memorial in Bath Abbey), daughter of (John) Abel Walter (d 1767) and Jane Nevill (d. 1786), who was de jure 4th Baroness Bergavenny of the 6th creation from the death of her sister Anne in 1736/7 (premier Barony in the Peerage of England, following the precedence given to her father), being daughter and eventual heir general of George Nevill (d 1720/1), Lord Bergavenny (see ABERGAVENNY M.), by whom he had issue,

1b Ascanius William (b 1775; d 1778)
2b George (b 1778; d 1778)
1b Nevillia (b 25 Jan 1769; d 17 Dec 1842), who m 4 Jan 1792 William Thomas (b 1760 d 20 Jan 1848), Lt. General 41st Regiment, of Brockhill House, Broadclyst, Devon, and had issue William Nevill (m Frances Bent Smith and had issue), Francis, Charles Ascanius Nevill (m Elizabeth Scott and had issue), Nevillia Wilhelmina, Charlotte Elizabeth Josephine (m Rev. Dashwood Lang and had issue), Mary Ann Vigors
2b Georgianna (b 1772; d 1773)
3b Charlotte Maria (1773-1798), who m 19 Aug 1790 Francis Fuller (1751-1841), of Salisbury, Wilts, Col. 59th Regt. of Foot, commanded a brigade at the capture of the islands of St. Bartholomew, St. Martin's, St. Thomas, and St. Croix in 1801, later Lt. General, and had issue Francis (1791-1853), Lt. Col. (m Charlotte Matilda Finch and had issue), Charlotte (1793-1865) (m Thomas Gunning, Surgeon-General and had issue) and Emilia (1798-1863) (m Francis Fuller, Lt. Col., and had issue)

1a Frances died unmarried

Nassau Thomas Senior (d 1786) A one ackey coin showing the arms* of the Company of Merchants Trading to Africa, formerly the Royal African Company, with an Indian (symbolizing America) and a negro (symbolizing Africa) as supporters. As Governor, Nassau Thomas Senior would have been entitled to impale these arms with his own.

*Arms: Argent, on waves of the sea, a frigate under full sail proper; and a chief Azure, charged with a cornucopia on the dexter and a beehive encircled by eight bees on the sinister, all Or. Crest: An elephant saddled with a castle from which flows the Ensign of St. George. Supporters: An Indian dressed in straw-skirt and a headgear of feathers, armed with bow and arrows; on the sinister a negro dressed in loincloth, a mask of an elephant’s head as a headgear, in his left hand a snake, all proper.

NASSAU* THOMAS SENIOR (d 29 June 1786), merchant and plantation owner, of Broxbourne, Hoddesdon, Herts, and later (from about 1785) of Upper Church St, Bath; Governor of the Company of Merchants Trading to Africa (est. 1750) from 1757 to 1761 (he appears to have lived at Cape Coast Castle, Ghana, during this period), which made him effective governor of the Gold Coast (now Ghana) as well as the whole coast of Africa between Cape Sallee (Morocco) and the Cape of Good Hope; m 3 May 1761 St. Michael, Barbados, Frances (b 1733 St. Michael, Barbados; d 24 Aug 1790), daughter of Dr. John Raven, and had issue,

1a JOHN RAVEN SENIOR, of whom we treat
1a Elizabeth Baldrick (b 11 Jun 1762; d 11 Sep 1771
- see her memorial in Hoddesdon church)

*The name 'Nassau' may have been adopted in honour of John Maurice of Nassau (1604-1679), Prince of Nassau-Siegen and Governor of the Dutch territories in Brazil, prior to the reconquest of these territories by the Portuguese in 1654, when over 5,000 Jews fled that country. One ship carrying 23 Jewish refugees from Brazil went to New Amsterdam (New York), where they formed the nucleus of the Sephardic Jewish community in the USA. Joseph Senior Saraiva's uncle, David Senior (who was born in about 1575 in Amarante, Portugal, and who died in Recife, Brazil, in 1650) was one of the leading members of the Jewish community in Recife. An alternative is that the name 'Nassau' was adopted in honour of William of Orange-Nassau (1650-1702), that is William III, whose seizure of the throne of England in 1688 was financed by Jews, possibly including the Senior family. Jews also financed William III's later wars against Louis XIV and did much to help London replace Amsterdam as the centre of European finance, a position it holds to this day. It is a curious fact that, on this basis, the famous Bill of Rights of 1689, one of the cornerstones of British democracy, was largely made possible by Jewish finance. One branch of the Senior family (who later took the name Husey-Hunt on marriage to an heiress) received an as yet unexplained grant of 2,000 acres in Jamaica from the Crown on 11 Nov 1690, two years after the Glorious Revolution; the conjecture must be that this was in payment or part payment of a debt (see HUSEY-HUNT, late of Compton Castle, Compton Pauncefoot, Somerset, which was sold in 1911, BLG 1906 and 1925 ed.). A third alternative is that the name was adopted in honour of the House of Nassau generally on account of the pre-eminent role they played in furthering the cause of religious freedom, for both Protestants and Jews. A fourth possibility is that Nassau Thomas Senior was born or conceived in Nassau, Bahamas or that his parents met there when his mother, Elizabeth Baldrick, was returning to England from visiting her estate in Barbados (Baldrick’s Plantation in the Parish of St. John's). Some Jewish familes who claimed Davidic decent adopted the surname ‘Nasi’ or the middle name ‘Nassi’. ‘Nassau’ may be a variant of this.

John Raven Senior (1763-1824) and his wife, Mary Duke (1769-1822), co-heiress of Henry Duke (d 1780), Solicitor-General of Barbados.

JOHN RAVEN SENIOR (b 8 Dec 1763 at Tavistock St, London; d 23 May 1824 at Winterbourne, Gloucs, memorial in St. James the Less, Iron Acton); of Compton Beauchamp and later (from about 1807) of Iron Acton; Clerk in Holy Orders and Doctor of Divinity; educ Merton College, Oxford (graduated 1785, MA 1788); ordained 1786; Vicar of Compton Beauchamp; Vicar of Durnford, Wiltshire from 1791; m 15 Nov 1787 Mary Duke (1769-1822), daughter and co-heiress of Henry Duke (d 1780), Solicitor-General of Barbados, and had issue, with two other children, who died young,

The arms of Duke, as depicted in St. Michael's Cathedral, Bridgetown, Barbados, being the arms of Duke of Duke Hayes (now Hayes Barton), East Budleigh, nr. Exeter, Devon, which estate the family owned for over 400 years, and Duke of Lake House, Lake, nr. Amesbury, Wiltshire (Per fess, argent and azure, three annulets countercharged).

1a NASSAU WILLIAM SENIOR, of whom we treat
2a Henry (b 1794; d 1861), of Glassdrumman or Glassdrummond House, nr Annalong, Co. Down; Colonel in the Army; served in the West Indies, Mediterranean and Canada; severely wounded in the action between HM packet 'Lapwing' and the American Privateer 'Fox' off Barbados on 30 Sep 1812; commanded the
65th (2nd Yorkshire, North Riding) Regiment for eleven years and later a Magistrate in Co. Down, N. Ireland; author of 'Charles Vernon: A Transatlantic Tale' (Longman, London, 1849), (Vol. 1 and Vol. 2); m 1820 Adelaide FitzHenry but dsp
3a John (b 1797; d 1844), HEICS, died unmarried in India
4a William (b 1800; d 1826) Lieut HEICS, Madras Army; m Elizabeth, daughter of Issac Beardmore of Bhowanipore, but dsp
5a Francis Stephen (b 1802), Capt HEICS; m 1824 Mary Anna Sherman (b 1805; d 1879) and had issue,

1b Anna Mary (b 1827); m 1845, at Bangalore, Capt Charles Wahab Tulloch (1820-1854), 1st Madras Fusiliers, and had issue
2b Maria (b 1828); m Richard Cooper (d 1880), Capt 45th Madras Native Infantry, but dsp
3b Adelaide Maria (b 1831); m 1849 Carlton Thomas Collingwood (1824-1860), HEICS Artillery and had issue Vansittart (1849-1860), Alice Maria (b 1850) (m 1868 Barnard Cracroft and had issue), Edward (d young), Florence Augusta (b 1855) (m - but dsp)
4b Emily Elizabeth (b 1831; d 1849)
5b Augusta (b 1832; d 1880); m 1851 William Farewell (b 1825), Major-General in the Madras Army, and had issue Charles William Freke (b 1852 Besowah), Frank Arthur Senior RN (b 1854 Besowah; d 1891 Kent), Mary Isobel (b 1856 Wellington, S. India), Adelaide Maria Maude (1861-1904) (m 1884 Dr Ernest Field and had issue), Margaret Emily Caroline (b 1862) (m 1888 James Rowland Williams of
Kew Park, Jamaica, and had, with other issue, a daughter Cicely - see here and here for information on Dr. Cicely Williams (1892-1992), a distinguished pioneer of child health care), John Raymond (b 1864 Ootacamund) (who m Florence -), Alexander Nassau (b 1865), Thomas Carlton (1866-1867), Michael Warren (1868-1953), Esmè Amy Alice (b 1869)

Dr. Cicely Williams (1892-1992), OM (Jamaica), CMG (1968), a pioneer of child health care. Almost starved to death by the Japanese as a prisoner of war in Singapore's infamous Changi Prison, she became the first Head of Mother and Child Health at the World Health Organisation; first and only woman to be awarded the Order of Merit (Jamaica). 'The most influential expert in child healthcare alive, quite possibly the greatest woman clinician and original thinker in medicine since Marie Curie, whose influence for good has been worldwide' (Craddock, Sally, 'Retired Except on Demand', Green College, Oxford, 1983, p. 166, quoting Dr. Robert Cook of the World Health Organisation).

6a Edward James (b 1811; d 1865) of Ashtoun (Ashtown) Lodge (now Ashtown Castle), Phoenix Park, Dublin, a Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland; m 1846 Theodosia, daughter of Marcus McCausland of Fruit Hill (later Drenagh, which he built), Limavady, Co. Londonderry, and had issue,

Ashtown Lodge, Phoenix Park, Dublin, as it was. This building was demolished in 1979, when Ashtown Castle was discovered and renovated. The gate lodge to Ashtown Lodge, as it is today.

The arms of Jones-Parry of Madryn Castle, descended in the male line from Tudor Trevor, Lord of Hereford, who married Angharad, daughter of Hywel Dda (c. 880-950), recorded as King of the Britons in the Annales Cambriae and the Annals of Ulster (Annals and Antiquities of the Counties and County Families of Wales).

1a Edward (1853-1914); m, firstly in 1880, Mary Evelyn Maitland Jones-Parry (d 1902), daughter of Robert Lloyd Jones-Parry (1816-1870), later Lloyd, of Aberdunant, Carnarvonshire, and of Tregayan, Anglesey, High Sheriff of Anglesey (1863), of the family of Jones-Parry of Madryn Castle, Pwllheli; issue unknown; he m, secondly on 3 Jan 1906, Emily Isabel Story (1856-1932), née Bright, of Liverpool
1a Mary Anne Emily (b 1847); m 1882 Frederick Willis
1b Ellen Georgina (b 1849); m 1868 Andrew St. John, 16th Lord St. John of Bletso (see SAINT JOHN OF BLETSO, B.), and had issue with a son, Sidney, who died young, two daughters, Ellen (1869-1959) and Margaret (1875-1949), both of whom married but dsp. She m, secondly in 1889 and as his first wife, Francis Savile Harry Judd JP (d 12 May 1933) of Mace's Place, Rickling, Essex. She died 26 Dec 1890.

1a Mary Duke (b 1788 d 29 Sep 1814)
2a Anna Eliza Frances (b 1808); m George Clark (1809-1874), Archdeacon of St. Davids (see his memorial window in St. Andrew's Church, Robeston Wathen, Pembrokeshire), and had issue Emily (1838-1864) (who m William Hastings Hughes (1833-1909) (see lineage of Hughes below) and had issue), Annita (1843-1929), Mary (1839-1913) and Gerard Collingwood (b 1843)
3a Mary Emily (b 1815)

Nassau William Senior (1790-1864) - Author of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which gave the poor a legal right to medical treatment in cases of emergency (Section 54). The workhouse infirmaries established under the Act were the foundation of the National Health Service (NHS). He was described by Count Cavour, founder of modern Italy, as 'the most enlightened thinker in Great Britain' (Letter from Count Cavour to Madame de Circourt, dated Turin, 23 Feb 1844).

NASSAU WILLIAM SENIOR (b 26 Sep 1790 at Compton Beauchamp, Berks; d 4 Jun 1864, memorial St. Mary Abbots, Kensington), barrister, of 13 Hyde Park Gate, London, was educated at Eton (1802-1807) and Magdelen College, Oxford (MA 1815); a student at Lincoln's Inn, he was called to the Bar in 1819. He was one of the most influential political economists of the 19th century and acted as an advisor to successive British governments on important economic and political issues, including trade unionism, employment, wages, working hours, education and Ireland. His attitude to the business of politics was dismissive and he preferred to influence affairs from behind the scenes. In 1832 he wrote 'I have had several propositions to be a candidate for the ensuing House of Commons, but have rejected the temptation, believing that what spare time I have can be more usefully employed in preparing measures to be introduced by others than in hearing long speeches and making indifferent ones' (He had a weak voice). He was the author of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, which led to the setting up of the workhouse system. This system was a much-needed replacement of the old parish-based system of poor relief, set up in Tudor times, which would have been overwhelmed by the huge social changes brought about by the industrial revolution, with devastating social and political consequences. The workhouse system, while it was unpopular, did provide an essential safety net for the poor which guaranteed food, shelter and medical treatment, generally of a better standard than that enjoyed by agricultural labourers outside the workhouse, and the workhouse infirmaries established under the Act were the foundation of the National Health Service (NHS) - see 'The Origins of the National Health Service' by Ruth G. Hodgkinson (The Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1967), Chapter 1 'The New Poor Law and the Medical Services'. Section 54 of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 established a legal right to medical treatment in cases of emergency, enforceable by a fine imposed personally on the local Overseer of the Poor should he fail to provide such treatment. Nassau William Senior held the first chair of political economy at Oxford University (1825-30, 1847-52) and was a Master in Chancery from 1836-53. In 1832 he was removed, after one year in office, from his position as Professor of Political Economy at King's College, London, for supporting the Catholic Church in Ireland. The suppression of ten (Protestant) Irish Bishoprics by the Whig government in the following year (1833), in accordance with his recommendations, caused an uproar which led to the formation of Oxford Movement. He framed the proposal which settled the Oregon Dispute of 1844-46, in spite of strong opposition from British politicians, and thereby prevented a war between Great Britain and the United States. He declined the office of Governor of Upper Canada (and the consequential peerage) and a knighthood. He was for many years a contributor to the Edinburgh Quarterly, London and North British Reviews, covering literary as well as economic and political subjects; see his entry in DNB. He m 30 Apr 1821 Mary Charlotte (b 14 Mar 1791 in the West Indies; d 18 Apr 1883), daughter of John Mair of Acton Lodge, Iron Acton, Gloucs, (son of Nathaniel Mair and Jean, née Alexander, who m in Turriff, Aberdeenshire on 27 May 1737) and had issue,

1a NASSAU JOHN SENIOR, of whom we treat
1a Mary Charlotte (1825-1909), author of 'Many Memories of Many People' (1898), m 1865 Charles Simpson, barrister, and had, with a son, John, a daughter, Henrietta Mary Amy ('Amy') Simpson (1866-1957), who m 1887 John St. Loe Strachey (1860-1927), editor of The Spectator (1887-1925), author of 'The Adventure of Living: a Subjective Autobiography', son of Sir Edward Strachey, 3rd Bt., of Sutton Court, Stowey, Somerset (see STRACHEY, Bt.), and had issue Thomas Clive Strachey (1888-1907), Lt. Surrey Imp Yeo; Evelyn John St. Loe Strachey (1901-1963), socialist politician and Marxist-Leninist theorist; MP 1929-31 and 1945-63; Under-Secretary of State for Air 1945, Minister of Food 1946; Privy Counsellor 1946; Sec. of State for War 1950-1951 (father of Sir Charles Strachey (b 1934), 6th Bt.) and Mary Amabel Nassau Strachey (1894-1984), who m Sir Clough Williams-Ellis CBE MC (1883-1978), Capt Welsh Guards, founder of Portmeirion, and had issue, with two daughters, Susan (1918-2007), founder of the Portmeirion Pottery, and Charlotte (1919-2009), a son, Christopher (1922-1944, killed in action at Monte Cassino, Italy), Lieut Welsh Guards

Mary ('Minnie') Senior (1825-1909) by George Frederick Watts (1856/7) Nassau John Senior (1822-1891). Engraving of 'The boy with dog' by Sir Thomas Lawrence (1827/8?). See 'Many Memories of Many People' (1898), p. 4.

NASSAU JOHN SENIOR (b 2 Feb 1822; d 29 Aug 1891, memorial St. Mary Abbots, Kensington), barrister, of Elm House, Lavender Hill, Battersea and later of 98 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea. Educated at King's College School, London and Christ Church College, Oxford. A student at Lincoln's Inn in 1844, he was called to the Bar in 1847; secretary of commissions (to Lord Chancellors) 1852-60; assistant boundary commissioner 1867; revising barrister Westminster, Kensington and Hackney 1868-69. He was an equity draftsman and conveyancer who had chambers at various locations within Lincoln's Inn, such as 2 New Square in 1848 and 10 New Square in 1850. By 1855 he had moved outside the Inn and was at 12 Southampton Row. By 1860 no chambers were listed so he seems to have ceased practicing until about 1877 when he reappears listed at 8 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, until 1880. See his portrait as a young boy by Sir Thomas Lawrence. He m 1848 Jane Elizabeth (1828-1877), humanitarian, daughter of John Hughes, JP, of Donnington Priory (see lineage of Hughes below and BLG 1847 under 'HUGHES OF DONNINGTON PRIORY') and had issue an only child,

Walter Nassau Senior (1850-1933) modelled for the young boy in 'The Rescue' (1855) by John Everett Millais (National Gallery of Victoria). See the full picture below.

WALTER NASSAU SENIOR (b 16 Mar 1850 at Donnington Priory, Newbury, Berks; d 20 Oct 1933), barrister, of 98 Cheyne Walk, London (until 1904); 12 Chichester Terrace, Brighton (until 1912), Branksome, Saffrons Rd, Eastbourne (until 1920) and then 50 St. John's Rd, Eastbourne and also of The Haven, Heatherwood Park Road, Totland, Isle of Wight (until 1924). Educated at Rugby and University College, Oxford. Student at Lincoln's Inn in 1871, called to the Bar in 1875. He was an equity draftsmen and conveyancer who had chambers in Lincoln's Inn at 2 Old Buildings in 1880 and 21 Old Buildings by 1885 (Foster's 'Men-at-the-Bar' lists him at 21 Old Square). From 1890 he does not have a chambers address so presumably ceased to practice. He m 27 Oct 1887 Mabel Barbara (1864-1943), daughter of Hugh Hammersley, banker, sometime of Sun House, Chelsea; Cromwell Gardens, London and Warren House, Kingston-upon-Thames (see lineage of Ham(m)ersley below) and had issue, with a daughter, Jennie (b 8 Oct 1896; d 27 Oct 1896) an only son,

Oliver Nassau Senior (1901-1992) in the uniform of an officer in the Royal Field Artillery. He served with 232 Battery, 58th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, a territorial army unit, from 1925 to 1929. Cap badge of the Royal Field Artillery. Mottos: Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt (Where Right And Glory Lead), Ubique (Everywhere)

OLIVER NASSAU SENIOR, BA, ARICS, farmer and Chartered Surveyor, late of Park Manor, 8 St. Aldhems Road, Branksome Park, Poole, Dorset (1985-92); 12 Minterne Grange, Crichel Mount Rd., Lilliput, Poole, Dorset (1971-1985); Purbeck Cottage, Chaddesley Glen, Poole, Dorset (1959-1971); Ardencote, Alington Rd., Poole, Dorset (1955-59); 24 Northmoor Road, Oxford (1946-1955); Belmont House, Thame, Oxon (1936-1946); 25 Newton Court, Church St., Kensington (1935-1936); Mill Dene, Eastbourne Road, Seaford, Sussex (1931-1935); Cambridge (1930-1931); Tideways, Bosham, Sussex (Winter 1929); The Bough Farm, Burwash Common, Sussex (1925-1929); b 28 Nov 1901 at 98 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, London; educ St. Peter's, Chesterfield Rd., Eastbourne 1912-15; Haileybury 1915-17, Eastbourne College (changed school following a bout of double pneumonia) 1917-19; Studied for Responsions for Oxford at a private crammer in Eastbourne 1919-20; Univ. College, Oxford (B.A. Agric.) 1921-24; Farming pupil at Iford Farm (prop. J & H Robinson), Sutton House, Iford, nr. Lewes, Sussex (1924-25); Farming in Burwash, Sussex 1925-29; Studied crop husbandry, Cambridge 1930-31; Served articles (ARICS 1933) with Powell & Co., Lewes, Sussex 1931-35; Working independently in London 1935-36; Land Agent for E H Dashwood Esq, Aston Rowant Estate, Oxon 1936-38; Asst. Land Agent, HQ Eastern Command, London 1938-40; Asst. Land Agent, War Dept., Oxford 1940-46; Senior Asst. Land Commissioner, Min. of Ag., Gloucester 1946-48; Asst. Bursar, St. John's College, Oxford 1948-55; President Architecture & Surveying Institute 1934; m 8 Sep 1927 Dorothy (b 31 May 1904; d 27 Dec 1987), sometime secretary to Rudyard Kipling at Bateman's (Burwash, East Sussex), daughter of Herbert Heaton Gardner-Smith (1869-1922) and Annie Elizabeth née Pierce (1874-1918); d 30 Jun 1992 having had issue,

Pamela Mary Senior  

1a Pamela Mary, MAOT, for whom Mrs. Rudyard Kipling stood sponsor (see above); b 25 Aug 1928 at the Tweeddale Nursing Home, Tunbridge Wells, Kent; m 5 Jul 1951 Denys Gordon Milne, CBE (b 12 Jan 1926; d 9 Feb 2000) and has issue (see lineage of Milne above)
2a Anne Barbara, sometime of The Foreign Office; b 1 Jan 1933; m 29 Dec 1956 Richard Tregonwell Collier and has issue,

1b Neil Tregonwell; b 9 Nov 1959; educ Shrewsbury; St. Andrew's University; m 26 Apr 2005 Linda Mary Riley
2b Roger Nassau, CEng, MICE; b 4 May 1961; educ Shrewsbury; Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London; m 27 Jun 1998 Sally Denise Todd (b 11 Apr 1964)
3b Anthony Kaye; educ Shrewsbury; Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London; b 10 Sep 1963; m 17 Dec 1988 (divorce 2000) Deborah Louise Crabtree (b 12 Jun 1962) and has issue,

1c Rosanna Louise; b 14 Jan 1991
2c Laura Emily; b 5 Nov 1992

He m, secondly, 6 Apr 2002 Victoria Mary Skinner (b 22 Mar 1974) and has issue,

1c Jacob Tregonwell; b 13 Sep 2004
1c Katherine Mary; b 22 Jan 2003


Arms

The arms of Senior (or Coronel) in England (left), Holland and Germany (second left), Portugal (third left) and Spain (right)

Spain:

Arms: Gules, five eagles displayed argent in saltire, the middle eagle crowned or, on a bordure argent seven fleur-de-lys azure.
Crest: Not known but probably an eagle dispayed argent crowned or.

These are the arms attributed to Coronel in Spain. They differ from the original arms of the main Coronel family, which became extinct on the death of the three daughters (Aldonza, Mayor and Maria) of Alfonso Fernandez Coronel, Lord of Aguilar (Aguilar de la Frontera - thus 'Lord of the Eagle of the Frontier'), who was executed by King Pedro the Cruel in 1353. These arms can be seen on the tomb of Dona Maria Alfonso Coronel (d 1332), aunt of Alfonso Fernandez Coronel (x 1353) and wife of Don Alonso Pérez de Guzmán ('El Bueno'), ancestor of the Dukes of Medina-Sidonia, in the Monastery of San Isidoro del Campo in Santiponce, Seville.

Tomb of Maria Alfonso Coronel (d 1332) in the Monastery of San Isidoro del Campo in Santiponce, Seville. The Coronel arms of five eagles dispayed appear to have a field of gold and the eagles are probably black, blue or red. The larger arms are those of Guzman, Dukes of Medina-Sidonia.

The arms of Coronel on a column in the inner courtyard of a house (no. 17) in Calle del Portal Mayor, Siguenza. In these arms the coronet ('coronel') is placed above the eagles rather than on the head of the middle eagle. It is likely that the bordure argent with seven fleur-de-lys azure was added to the original arms as a mark of difference.

The arms of Coronel (five eagles with a bordure with seven fleur-de-lys), on the right, impaling the arms of Zapata (five shoes with a bordure with seven escutcheons, or a bend sable), on the left. The coronet can be clearly seen on top of the shield. This was on the front of a house at 6 Calle Palacio, Almazan (Teógenes Ortego, 'Almazán, ilustre villa soriana', Soria, 1973, page 28). This building is just behind the Palacio Mendoza.

Portugal:

Arms (of Coronel, formerly and latterly Senior): Azure, five eagles displayed or in saltire, the middle eagle crowned or.
Crest: On a wreath of the colours, an eagle displayed and crowned or.

Isaiah 46:11 - 'From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.

As granted in 1499 by King Manuel I of Portugal to Nicolao Coronel, Physician to the Royal Family, who appears to have accompanied Maria, daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, into Portugal on the occasion of her marriage to Manuel I in 1497 (Arquivo Nacional da Tore do Tombo, Liv 4 de Misticos, fls 165 verso e Chanceleria de D. Manuel, Liv 16 fls 108 verso). These arms, together with hereditary nobility, were later granted to a number of Don Abraham's descendants, both in the male and female lines*, in right of their descent from him, by which hereditary right they were 'Fidalgos de Cota d'Armas', literally 'Noblemen with a coat of arms' (See 'Anuario da Nobreza de Portugal', 1985, Vol. 1, p. 114 under 'Penafiel, Marquis of').

*Luiz Gomes d'Elvas Coronel (1600 and 1607 - charter of nobility as a descendant of Don Abraham Senior)
Manuel Soares Coronel (1605)
Andre Soares de Saraiva Coronel, descended from Antonio Coronel (see above), great-grandfather of Joseph Senior Saraiva who died in Barbados in 1694, as stated above (1644 - charter of nobility as a descendant of Don Abraham Senior)
Descendants of Branca Coronel (1678 and 1818)

England:

Arms (of Senior - as granted to Ascanius William Senior and the descendants of his father in 1767): Per fess, gules and azure, a fess ermine between, in chief, two lions heads erased or and, in base, a dolphin naiant embowed argent.
Crest: On a wreath of the colours, on a mount vert a leopard couchant crowned with an Eastern coronet or.
Motto: 'Medio tutissimus ibis' ('You will be the safest in the middle' or 'The middle way is best'), Ovid, 'Metamorphoses', II, 137.

"Take this at least, this last advice, my son,
Keep a stiff rein, and move but gently on:
The coursers of themselves will run too fast,
Your art must be to moderate their haste.
Drive 'em not on directly through the skies,
But where the Zodiac's winding circle lies,
Along the midmost Zone; but sally forth
Nor to the distant south, nor stormy north.
The horses' hoofs a beaten track will show,
But neither mount too high, nor sink too low.
That no new fires, or Heav'n or Earth infest;
Keep the mid way, the middle way is best.
Nor, where in radiant folds the serpent twines,
Direct your course, nor where the altar shines.
Shun both extreams; the rest let Fortune guide,
And better for thee than thy self provide!
See, while I speak, the shades disperse away,
Aurora gives the promise of a day;
I'm call'd, nor can I make a longer stay.
Snatch up the reins; or still th' attempt forsake,
And not my chariot, but my counsel, take,
While yet securely on the Earth you stand;
Nor touch the horses with too rash a hand.
Let me alone to light the world, while you
Enjoy those beams which you may safely view."

Holland and Germany:

Arms: Quarterly, 1st and 4th, gules a lion rampant or (for Senior), 2nd and 3rd, gules a tree vert upon a terrace (for de Mattos).
Crest: A lion rampant issuant out of a crown or.

Note also that Diego Teixeira Sampayo (Abraham Senior Teixeira) was ennobled in 1643 at Anvers (Antwerp) and granted arms as follows: Quarterly, 1st and 4th, or an eagle displayed purpure; 2nd and 3rd, checky or and sable (sixteen fields); bordure gules, charged with eight "S's" argent and for the crest five ostrich-plumes, sable, or, gules, argent, sable. (Source: Rietstap, 'Armorial Général, Precedé d'un Dictionnaire des Termes du Blason', 2nd ed., 2 vols. Gouda, 1887, vol. ii, p. 891; Rietstap, 'Wapenboek van den Nederlandschen Adel', vol. ii, p. 87). These are the arms of the Marquises of Sao Payo in Portugal, who are apparently of Jewish origin.


The Exilarchate (The Princes of the Captivity)

The Tree of Jesse (Getty Ms, Ludwig IX, 18 f65, 1510-20) - King David can be seen playing his harp below and to the right of the Virgin and Child.

As Professor Haim Beinart has stated in 'The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain' (p. 420), Don Abraham Senior was referred to in a letter of 1487 from the Jews of Castile to the Jews of Rome and Lombardy as 'the Exilarch who is over us'*. 'Exilarch' means 'Prince of the Captivity' or 'Head of the Exile'** (that is, de jure King of the Jews in exile), a title dating from the Babylonian Exile of 597-538 BC which appears to have survived in Mesopotamia until Tamerlane the Great sacked Baghdad in 1401. The title was hereditary in and exclusive to the House of David (see I Chronicles iii. 17 et seq. and II Kings xxv. 27) but was elective amongst the immediate male members of that family and subject to rabbinic approval. Given the fact that the title appears never to have been accorded to (or used to describe) anyone not acknowledged by rabbinic authorities to be of Davidic descent, and that the misuse of such a title would have been most unlikely, given that the Bible/Torah restricts the title to the House of David (see above), it is reasonable to infer that Don Abraham was descended from one of those branches of the House of David that have been traced to Spain (see the Jewish Encyclopaedia under 'Exilarch') and that the title was accorded to him in an attempt to revive the Exilarchate after it had ceased to be recognised in Mesopotamia, as happened in Egypt in 1081 during an interregnum. According to my mother, when she was a young girl an American gentleman approached my grandfather with proof that he was descended from King David but my grandfather did not pursue the matter.

*'shall not turn away the tribe of Judah, he the Exilarch who is over us'. A translation of the same letter of 1487 appears in 'Spain and the Jews' edited by Elie Kedourie (page 70) and refers to 'the staff from Judah that is our Exilarch'. If this translation is correct then this would mean that the letter of 1487 contains a clear and unequivocal statement (to Jewish readers at least) to the effect that Don Abraham was 'ruler of the Jews' ('staff') 'of the House of David' ('from Judah'; that is the Royal House of Judah, otherwise the House of David) in accordance with the Blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49:10): ‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.’ Genesis 49:10 is variously translated as:

Masoretic Text (the official Hebrew text) The staff from Judah will not leave nor the chieftain from his offspring until will come He who is sent and to Him is given the nations
Vulgate The staff from Judah will not leave nor the leader until He comes that is to be sent and he shall be the expectation of the nations
Qumran cave four (fragment) The prince of the tribe of Judah will be present not even David's whom will be sitting on the throne
Targum Onkelos The keeper of the power of the house of Judah will not cease nor the scribe between the sons of his sons until the Messiah comes
Targum Neophyti The king between the house of Judah will not cease nor the scribes who teach the law among the sons of his sons until the Messiah comes
Septuagint The ruler from Judah will not leave nor the leader from his offspring until may come that which is laid in store and he, the expectations of nations

Broadly speaking then Genesis 49:10 can be translated as 'The kingship will continue in the House of Judah until the coming of the Messiah' and, on this basis, the words 'staff from Judah' mean 'Prince of Judah' or 'King of Judah'.

**The 10th century writer, Nathan ha-Babli, is quoted in the Jewish Encyclopedia as referring to 'our prince, the exilarch', making it clear that the Exilarch was regarded as the prince of his people.

Inside the Chapel of the Descent (Capilla del Descendimiento) established by Don Abraham Senior at the Monastery of Santa Maria del Parral, Segovia and where he is buried. The arch on the right has the Coronel coat of arms either side of what is clearly a tree - the Tree of Jesse. Many members of the Coronel family are buried here, including Don Abraham Senior's grand-daughter, Maria Coronel, second wife of the popular Spanish hero, Juan Bravo.

The Lion of Judah - The arms of Senior, as borne by the family in Holland and Germany, quartered with the arms of de Mattos, as depicted on the tombstone of Ester Gomes de Mesquita, wife of Isaac Haim Senior Texeira (1625-1705), in the Ouderkerk aan den Amstel cemetery. The Lion of Judah - Seal (reversed i.e. as a wax seal would have appeared) of 'Nasi' ('Prince') Kalonymus ben Todros of Narbonne (fl. 11th century) 'of the seed of David' according to Bejamin of Tudela.
Note that Heinrich Graetz in his 'History of The Jews' (Vol. IV p. 228 - see here also) refers to 'an influential Jew, Abraham Benveniste, surnamed Senior' who was granted high office under King Juan II of Castile. That this is indeed intended to refer to Don Abraham Senior is borne out by the entry in the index which states: 'Benveniste, Abraham, Senior (Coronel), tithe-collector, accepts Christianity, 351. convenes a synod, 229. friend of Isaac Abrabanel, 341. holds office in Castile, 228. negotiates a royal marriage, 280.' It seems to be clear, however, that the Abraham Benveniste who was Court Rabbi under King Juan II of Castile (d 1454) cannot (it appears) have been Don Abraham Senior because the latter was not appointed to the post until 1477, unless he was re-appointed to the post. Interestingly, the first mention we have of Don Abraham Senior as such is in 1468 (Beinart, p. 413), when he was apparently 56, which gives rise to the question of what he was doing before that date. In any event it is quite probable (indeed likely) that Don Abraham Senior was a member or close blood relative of the Benveniste family, possibly via his mother, because:

1. Abraham Benveniste had a son called Abraham, known as Abraham Benveniste the Elder, and a son Joseph who had a son called Abraham and while Abraham Benveniste the Elder does not appear to be Don Abraham Senior* the nomenclature does prove that an Abraham Benveniste could have been called Abraham 'the Elder'. 'Seneor/senor' means 'sire' or 'lord' in Spanish but could also have been used as a mark of respect for an elder (see the Jewish Encyclopaedia).

*Don Abraham was apparently aged 80 when he converted to Christianity in 1492, which would mean that he was born in 1412, whereas Abraham Benveniste the Elder was born in 1433 according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia.

2. Court positions were 'kept within the family' as far as possible and, in fact, such an arrangement suited the crown because the successor to a post would be trained into the job by his father, uncle or other relative, so that it is more than likely that Abraham Benveniste was succeeded as Court Rabbi by a relative, who may well also have been succeeded by a relative.

3. Being a member of the Benveniste family could account for the reference to Don Abraham Senior as 'Exilarch' since the Benveniste family were an ancient and distinguished family whose members were sometimes designated as 'Nasi' (prince), including Sheshet Benveniste of Narbonne (d. about 1209), and they were, on this basis, originally a Jewish princely family of Narbonne. In this context note that Thomas of Monmouth in his 'Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich' (1173 i.e. contemporary with Sheshet Benveniste of Narbonne above) says 'Wherefore the chief men and Rabbis of the Jews who dwell in Spain assemble together at Narbonne, where the Royal seed [of David] resides', as quoted by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln in their book 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. See also Benjamin of Tudela's 'Book of Travels' (1173) (p. 2) in which he says of Narbonne: 'A three days' journey takes one to Narbonne, which is a city pre-eminent for learning; thence the Torah (Law) goes forth to all countries. Sages, and great and illustrious men abide here. At their head is R. Kalonymos, the son of the great and illustrious R. Todros of the seed of David, whose pedigree is established.' Moshe Shaltiel-Gracien, in his book 'Shaltiel - One Family's Journey Through History', a history of the Davidic descent of the Shaltiel family, quotes a reference (p. 156) to Sheshet Benveniste by the contemporary 12th century poet al-Harizi as follows: 'And there was the residence of our lord, our excellency, the Prince of All Princes, known by name from West to East, R. Sheshet, the pillar of the world and the foundation of all saints (may his memory be for a blessing).'

'She is no more, the noble Princess, the Glory of Israel, the splendid flower of exile who built her house in purity and sanctity. She has protected the poor and saved the afflicted, bringing happiness to this world and joy in the world to come.' - Funeral oration of Dona Gracia Mendes Nasi. Dona Gracia 'enjoyed a status that resembled a crowned head of state' and was known by the Jews as 'La Senora' (which shows that 'Senor', as in Don Abraham Senior or Senor, could have been used in a similar fashion to refer to a man) and was referred to as 'the crowned', 'the crowning lady' and as wrapped in 'the headdress of kingship' (Andree Aelion Brooks, 'The Woman Who Defied Kings: The Life and Times of Dona Gracia Nasi', Chapter 17). Today, the La Senora (La Sinyora) or Crowned Lady Synagogue in Izmir, founded by Dona Gracia, still survives.

Dona Gracia Mendes Nasi (1510-1569) with her nephew, Joseph Nasi, Duke of Naxos and the Seven Islands, Count of Andros and Lord of Tiberias (from a 1930s lithograph). He was the basis of Marlowe’s play ‘The Jew of Malta’ on which Shakespeare based his ‘Merchant of Venice’.

The famous Gracia Mendes Nasi (1510-1569), also known by her Christianized name Beatriz de Luna Miques, whose mother was a Benveniste, married Francisco Mendes (originally Benveniste) and their daughter, Brianda, married Gracia's nephew, Joseph Nasi, Duke of Naxos and the Seven Islands (otherwise 'Duke of the Aegean'), whose Belvedere palace was at Ortaköy, overlooking the Bosphorous. He fought at the Battle of Lepanto. Don Abraham Senior's son, Solomon Senior, alias Juan Perez Coronel, was Joseph Nasi's right-hand man. He was the father of Francisco Coronel, who administered the Duchy of Naxos on Joseph Nasi's behalf. The Mendes/Benveniste family were the greatest banking family in Europe at the time.

Don Abraham Senior's second wife, Dona Maria Sanches del Rio, appears to have been descended from the Davidic Prince, Kalonymos ben Todros of Narbonne as follows (unverified information from Geni.com): Dona Maria Sanches del Rio, daughter of Abraham Sanches (del Palacios de Judeo), son of Me'ir ben Samuel HaLevi Abulafia, son of Samuel ben Me'ir HaLevi Abulafia, son of Me'ir Todros ben Yehuda HaLevi Abulafia, son of Yehudah ben Todros HaLevi Abulafia, son of Todros ben Yehudah HaLevi Abulafia, son of Yehudah ben Todros HaLevi Abulafia, son of Todros Moshe ben Yosef HaLevi Abulafia, son of Yosef ben Me'ir, son of Todros ben Kalonymus (Abulafia?), son of Kalonymus V 'Yehudah Nathan' ben Todros, son of Rav Kalonymus "HaZaken". Don Abraham's son, Juan Perez Coronel, married a Cateline del Rio, presumably a member of the same family, which would mean that the children of Don Abraham's first wife, Violante de Cabrera, via this son, also shared this descent.

Geni.com also shows the following for Don Abraham's first wife, Dona Violante de Cabrera: Dona Violante de Cabrera, daughter of María Alonso de Cabrera del Castillo, daughter of Alonso González Del Castillo Avilés, Barón de Illescas and Maria Pérez de Cabrera, daughter of Martín Pérez de Cabrera y Foix, son of Margarita de Foix y Luna, daughter of Roger Bernard III de Foix, Vescomte de Castellbò, son of Jeanne d'Artois, Comtesse de Foix, daughter of Blanche de Dreux, Dame de Brie-Comte-Robert, daughter of Princess Beatrice of England, Countess of Richmond, daughter of King Henry III of England. Sources (such as www.genealogics.org) confirm that the Cabrera family inter-married with the de Foix family and it is established that the de Foix family were descended from European royal families, including Charlemagne. See here also.

If these lines are correct then the children of Juan Perez Coronel would have united the blood of the Exilarchs of the Jews and the Christian Kings of Jerusalem.

The Bosphorous from Çiragan Palace at Ortaköy. Çiragan Palace at Ortaköy.

A possible line of descent is from Abraham 'Nasi' ('Nasi' means 'Prince of the House of David'), apparently ancestor of several Marrano families, son of Hiyya Ha-Nasi, who was born in Spain, son of David (d 1092), 39th Exilarch of the 3rd dynasty***, who temporarily fled to Spain in 1040 when his father, Hezekiah, 38th Exilarch, was imprisoned by the Caliph of Baghdad (Hezekiah was later executed in 1058). Hezekiah was 117th Exilarch in succession to Jeconiah (d 559 BC), 1st Exilarch and penultimate King of Judah of the House of David, who, in 597 BC, was taken by Nebuchadnezzar as a captive to Babylon. Alternative possible lines of descent are from Nissim, 69th Exilarch, who was deposed in 1295 and went to Spain, and Issac Alfasi (d 1103), descended from Azariah, 34th Exilarch, who fled to Spain in 1088. Note that the surname 'Senior' is derived from the Spanish 'senor', that is 'sire' or 'lord', which may, in turn, be a translation of 'Nasi'; thus, Abraham Senior would mean Abraham 'Senor' (in fact the name was often spelled 'Senor'), that is Abraham 'Nasi', that is Abraham the Prince [of the House of David] - but this is speculation. 'Coronel', the surname adopted by the Senior family in 1492, means 'coronet' (used today to denote the rank of 'colonel'). It appears ('Spain and the Jews', p.68) that Don Abraham signed his name simply 'Abraham', without a surname, which might indicate that 'Senior' was not a surname but a title or nickname derived from a title. A prominent branch of the family in Portugal, the Counts and Marquises of Penafiel, adopted the surname 'Da Mata Coronel'. 'Da Mata' means 'of the bush' but a common variant of 'mata' in Portugal is 'matos', which in Hebrew means 'tribe'. Thus 'Da Mata Coronel' might be intended to mean 'the crown of the tribe' - but, again, this is speculation.

***Various sources give different numberings.

The 12th century writer, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (Spain), describing his visit to Baghdad in his 'Book of Travels' (1173), noted that Daniel, 52nd Exilarch of the 3rd dynasty (reigned 1150-74), who he described as 'Our Lord the Head of the Captivity of all Israel', and who was the great-great-grandson of David, 39th Exilarch (above), had 'a book of pedigrees going back as far as David, King of Israel'; this pedigree was clearly accepted as authentic by both the rabbinic authorities of the time and the Jewish people at large. While the pedigrees of the Exilarchs undoubtedly contain errors, inconsistencies and even some spurious entries, this does not mean that such pedigrees cannot be regarded as historical or cannot point to a fundamental historical truth, which is that for a period of around 2000 years (597 BC to 1401 AD), and almost reaching into the modern era, though not continually throughout that period, there was a dynasty of rulers of the Jews acknowledged by both the rabbinic authorities and the Jewish people at large, and indeed by the Caliphs and others under whose rule the Jewish people lived, to be not just of Davidic descent but rightful heirs to the throne of David. According to Benjamin of Tudela, when the Exilarch went to visit the Caliph the heralds announced his coming with the words "Make way for our Lord, the Son of David." ("Amilu tarik la Saidna ben Daud."). As David Einsiedler stated in his article 'Descent From King David - Part II' ('Avotaynu: The International Review of Jewish Genealogy', 1993, Vol. IX, No. 2, page 34) 'Genealogists who value religious tradition could say that our rabbis and sages did not make statements about Davidic descent lightly, that they were trustworthy and insisted on truth.'

The Babylonian Exilarchate had been seated (in an official rather than physical sense) at Baghdad since the 8th century AD, having moved, it appears, from Babylon to Seleucia on the Tigris in the 4th century BC, following the founding of that city in around 305 BC by Seleucus Nicator (c 358-281 BC), one of the generals of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC); to Ctesiphon in the 2nd century AD, after Seleucia was burned by the Emperor Trajan (53-117) in 117 AD; to Damascus after 637 when Ctesiphon was sacked by Umar (d 644), 2nd Caliph and Companion of the Prophet Mohammed (d 632), during the Arab conquest of Persia; to Baghdad after 750 when the Umayyad caliphate was overthrown by the Abbasids at the Battle of Zab. Note that Babylon, Seleucia, Ctesiphon and Baghdad are all in the same vicinity, so that it appears that the physical seat of the Exilarchs remained in the same place, even during the period when political power briefly shifted to Damascus. The physical seat of the Exilarchs seems to have been at Nehardea from the time of Jeconiah, at Sura from the beginning of the 5th century AD and then at Pumbedita from the end of the 8th century until the fall of Hezekiah, 38th Exilarch and last gaon, in 1040; after that the Exilarchs seem to have been seated at Baghdad. The Exilarchate survived the sack of Baghdad by Hulagu Khan (1217-1265), grandson of Genghis Khan (c 1162-1227) and destroyer of the Caliphate, in 1258 (although it is said 800,000 people were killed, the Jews were specifically spared) and the later collapse of the Mongol Khanate of Persia after 1335 into a motley of successor dynasties, including the Jalayirids (whose capital was at Baghdad), the Muzafarids, the Eretnids, the Sarbadarids and the Karts. Indeed, from the destruction of the neo-Babylonian Empire by Cyrus the Great in 538 BC to the sack of Baghdad by Tamerlane the Great in 1401 AD, a period of nearly 2000 years, the Exilarchate survived the violent collapse of 11 empires****, namely:

  • the Neo-Babylonian Empire (538 BC);
  • the Persian Empire (331 BC);
  • the Greek Empire (323 BC);
  • the Seleucid Empire (141 BC);
  • the Parthian Empire (224 AD);
  • the Sassanid (or Second Persian) Empire (637 AD);
  • the Orthodox Caplihate (661 AD);
  • the Umayyad Caliphate (750 AD);
  • the Abassid Caliphate (1258 AD);
  • the Mongol Khanate of Persia (1335 AD);
  • the Jalayirid Emirate (1401 AD).

Baghdad was subsequently ruled by Shah Rukh, son of Tamerlane the Great, from 1401 to 1410, the Qara Quyunlu or Black Sheep Turkmen (1410-1469), the Aq Quyunlu or White Sheep Turkmen (1469-1508), the Safavids (1508-1534), the Ottoman Turks (1534-1917), the British (1917-1921) and the Hashemite dynasty (1921-1958). Although Tamerlane the Great ended the 'official' recognition of the Exilarchate after he sacked Baghdad in 1401, it appears that the line of Exilarchs continued to be acknowledged by the Jewish community in Baghdad until the death of the last heir of that line, Pasha, called 'King of the Jews', in 1825, after which the heirship passed to the Dayan family, descended from a house of Palestinian Princes. Pasha (d 1825) was descended from Chizkiya, 45/47th Exilarch (reigned 1092-94, 1096-97), elder brother of Hiyya Ha-Nasi above. The Dayan family are descended from Josiah, 27th Exilarch (reigned 930-933), younger brother of David 26/28th Exilarch (reigned 921-930, 933-940), who was the great-great-grandfather of Hezekiah, 38th Exilarch, mentioned above.

****'The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?' - Mark Twain

It is asserted that the first properly historical (that is provable from historical evidence outside the Bible) Exilarch was Nahun (reigned 140?-170 AD). Earlier Exilarchs, based on the genealogies in the Bible (I Chronicles iii. 17 et seq.*****), are regarded by some authors as legendary, mainly on the basis that the Josephus does not mention the office******. However, while earlier Exilarchs might well have been 'legendary' in the sense that they were not officially recognised as Exilarchs, this does not mean either that they are 'legendary' in the physical sense, that is that the individuals recorded in the genealogies never existed, or that they were not Exilarchs (the heirs of King David) by right of blood. No such conclusion can be drawn from Josephus.

*****The Biblical Exilarchs (I Chronicles iii 17-24)

17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son,
18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.
19 And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister:
20 And Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushabhesed, five.
21 And the sons of Hananiah; Pelatiah, and Jesaiah: the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shechaniah.
22 And the sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah: and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six.
23 And the sons of Neariah; Elioenai, and Hezekiah, and Azrikam, three.
24 And the sons of Elioenai were, Hodaiah, and Eliashib, and Pelaiah, and Akkub, and Johanan, and Dalaiah, and Anani, seven.

******'that these Biblical Exilarchs are legendary is obvious from the fact that Josephus does not mention the institution' - Goode, Alexander D., 'The Exilarchate in the Eastern Caliphate, 637-1258', 'The Jewish Quarterly Review', New Ser., Vol. 31, No. 2 (Oct., 1940), p. 149. This is not correct. Josephus, in his 'Antiquities of the Jews', book XI, chapter 3, para 10, says 'and the governor of all this multitude thus numbered [being the Jews who Cyrus the Great allowed to return to Jerusalem] was Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of David.' So Josephus does in fact refer to one of the individuals mentioned in I Chronicles iii 17-24 and it is clear that this person was the ruler of the Jews and of Davidic descent. Though not actually referred to by the title 'Exilarch' it is clear that Zorobabel was ruler of the Jews in exile, that is a de facto exilarch (since 'exilarch' means 'ruler in exile'), since he is referred to as 'Zorobabel, the governor of the Jews' (book XI, chapter 1, para 3). Thus, we have, on the basis of Josephus, a de facto historical exilarch over 600 years earlier than is often asserted.

Note, in this context, that the title of 'Pope' was first used in the third century but no-one has claimed as a consequence that the heads of the Catholic Church in Rome before that period should not be described by that title.

Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk (1919-1985), Albany Herald of Arms (Court of the Lord Lyon), writing in 'Books & Bookmen', February-March 1976, wrote: 'What's already known is that the Jews in exile in Asia were ruled under the Persian and later the Arab empires by 'Princes of the Captivity' called 'Exilarchs', with a genealogy claiming descent by at least the second century from the Royal House of David, probably with justification because it was based on their acceptance.' (Quoted from 'Lord of the Dance', London, 1986, Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd, p. 155).

In addition to the Babylonian Exilarchs there were several dynasties of Palestinian Princes, that is dynasties of princes in Palestine of Davidic descent, who maintained what appears to have been an intermittent authority parallel but subsidiary to the Babylonian Exilarchs, whose suzerainty they seem generally to have acknowledged. The existence of two parallel dynasties of secular rulers reflected the fact that there were two main centres of world Jewry at that time, namely Babylon/Mesopotamia and Judea; there was a similar parallel arrangement in religious affairs, namely between Jerusalem and the great Babylonian academies of Sura and Pumbedita.

  • Initially, it appears, there were two lines of princes, the Tobitite and Onaidite lines, descended from Tobit and Onaid, co-rulers and twin sons of Hananiah, Prince of Israel (reigned 425-405 BC), who was the son of Hattush, 1st Prince of Israel (reigned 457-445 BC), son of Meshullam, 4th Exilarch of the 1st dynasty. Hattush returned to Palestine with Ezra the Scribe who proclaimed him 'royal heir'. These lines appear to have survived (but only intermittently ruled) until at least the period of Herod the Great (74-4/1 BC).
  • At this time another dynasty of Palestinian Princes or Patriarchs emerged in the person of Hillel the Great, who was the teacher of Jesus Christ. This dynasty survived until the office of Palestinian Patriarch was abolished by Theodosius II (410-450), Emperor of Byzantium, in 425 AD.
  • A further dynasty, founded in about 550 by Sutra, son of Mar-Zutra (x 520), 30th Exilarch of the 2nd dynasty, survived until about 890 at Tiberias, with a rival dynasty seated at Jerusalem from 691 to 1099, presumably ending with the massacre of the population of Jerusalem during the First Crusade.
  • In 1187 another line of Palestinian Princes, ancestors of the Dayan family, was founded by Yosef Ha-Nasi, descended from Josiah, 27th Exilarch (reigned 930-933) as stated above, and continued until 1678 when Moshe Ha-Nasi was deposed by the Turks. Subsequently the 'Nasi' (so-called) was appointed by the Turkish governor until the Sultan abolished the office in 1849, when the duties of the office were taken over by the Hakham Bashi, Chief Rabbi of the Ottoman Empire. In 1933 Yitzak Dayan, of this line, Chief Rabbi in Aleppo (Syria), was recognized by rabbinic authorities as the 'Davidic heir' and the heirship has presumably passed down to the current day in the Dyan family.

There would have been numerous other descent lines of course; those listed are those that rose to prominence in Judea/Palestine.

Alexander Goode, writing in his article, 'The Exilarchate in the Eastern Caliphate, 637-1258' ('The Jewish Quarterly Review', New Ser., Vol. 31, No. 2, Oct. 1940) states that Samuel b. David (1240-1270?) was ‘the last Exilarch in the unbroken line of Exilarchs in Baghdad’ but he acknowledges that the Exilarchate may have continued until 1401 when Tamerlane ‘definitely put an end to organized Jewish life in Baghdad’. Goode accepted that the Exilarchate may have continued until 1401 in Baghdad partly on the basis that ‘we hear of a Nasi Sar Shalom b. Pinhos, a descendant of Josiah b. Zakkai, being accepted as Exilarch in Baghdad in 1341.’ The point is that if Goode was prepared to accept that the Exilarchate may have continued in Baghdad after 1258 on this basis, should we not also accept that the Exilarchate may have continued in Spain after 1401 on the basis that we know that Don Abraham Senior was described as Exilarch in 1487 in a letter from the Jews of Castile to the Jews of Rome and Lombardy; to all intents and purposes an official communication. Given that the Jews had maintained and supported a dynasty of Davidic rulers for 2,000 years through the violent collapse of 11 empires, were they likely to simply abandon that institution in 1401, an institution central to their history, way of life and religious beliefs? The question hardly needs to be asked.

The evidence therefore indicates that Don Abraham Senior was of Davidic descent but this cannot have been unique amongst the leading families of the Sephardim, who formed a closely-related and exclusive elite. Various Sephardic families claim Davidic descent, including those of Abravanel/Abarbanel, Shaltiel and Benveniste, and in respect of the two latter at least there are published pedigrees tracing their Davidic descent; a tombstone dated 27 August 1097, now in the Museo Sefardi in Toledo, records the death of a Rabbi Shemuel bar Shealtiel ha Nasi. It is possible that the title of Exilarch was accorded to Don Abraham Senior in an attempt to resurrect the Exilarchate in Spain after it had ceased to be recognized in Mesopotamia, but this only lasted until the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492. After that, it would seem, there was no Jewish community of sufficient size, stability or prestige to allow for the resurrection of the Exilarchate, until 1933 that is. Note that there was a historical precedent for attempting to establish the Exilarchate outside Mesopotamia. This happened in Egypt in 1081 when David ben Daniel, a descendant of the house of Exilarchs, was proclaimed Exilarch by the rabbinic authorities of that country; the attempt ended with his downfall in 1094.

This would appear to be the most common sense solution to the question of why we find the title of 'Exilarch' being used in Spain at that time. Further, the existence of families of Davidic descent in Spain at that time should not be viewed as extraordinary, given that there was such a dynasty in Palestine at that time; indeed, the absence of such families from Spain would have been a far greater oddity given the long-standing prominence of the Jewish community in that country.

O Zion, beauty and gladness of the world,
Thine is all love and grace, and unto thee
In love and grace we are for ever chained.
We who in thy happiness were happy
Are broken in thy desolation. Each
In the prison of his exile bows to earth,
And turns him toward thy gates. Scattered and lost,
We will remember till the end of time
The cradle of our childhood, from a thousand seas
Turn back and seek again thy hills and vales.
Glory of Pathros, glory of Shinar,
Compared to the light and truth that streamed from thee,
Are dust and vanity: and in all the world
Whom shall I find to liken to thy seers,
Thy princes, thy elect, thy anointed ones?
The kingdoms of the heathen pass like shadows,
Thy glory and thy name endure for ever.

'To Zion' - Judah Ha-Levi (1085-1140)


Lineage of Ham(m)ersley

HUGH HAMERSLEY, a sporting clergyman, of Cadeby Hall, Wyham cum Cadeby, Ludborough, Lincs, is believed to have been a grandson of Sir Hugh Hamerlsey (b 1565; d 1636), Lord Mayor of London 1627, a descendant of an old Staffordshire family originally called de Homersley, see DUCAT-HAMERSLEY OF PYRTON MANOR (BLG) - see note below; b 1663; educ Peterhouse College, Cambridge (admitted 31 May 1680 aged 16 and MA 30 Jun 1687); Chaplain to William III; Honorary Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury; Vicar of Roxby, Lincs from 1687; Rector of Broughton, Lincs from 1694; m Mary (b 1688; d 1718), daughter of John Pye of Cadeby Hall, and d 1714 having had issue,

1a HUGH, of whom presently
1a Mary; b 1705; m Neville Healy; d before 1757 having had issue two sons and one daughter, Elizabeth

Sir Hugh Hamersley (1565-1636), Lord Mayor of London 1627. This is the famous 'Ashbourne Portrait' which was believed for many years to be a portrait of Shakespeare ('the Mona Lisa of Shakespeare portraits'). See 'Shakespeare Matters', vol.1, no.1; vol. 1, no. 2 and vol.1, no. 3. Oxfordians have suggested that this portrait has been tampered with by Stratfordians to remove evidence which indicates that the portrait is of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (who the Oxfordians believe was Shakespeare) and add elements (particularly relating to the coat of arms at the top-left of the portrait) to support the assertion that the portrait is of Sir Hugh Hamersley.

Cadeby Hall, Ludborough, Lincs

HUGH HAMMERSLEY, solicitor, of Cadeby Hall, Ludborough, Lincs and Ouslethwaite Hall, Worsbrough, Yorks, the first to spell his name with a double 'm'; b 1706; Solicitor in Doncaster, of which town he became Mayor; m 1stly 1728 Elizabeth (d 1734), daughter of William Wade, Town Clerk of Doncaster, by whom he had three daughters, including Sarah who survived him; m 2ndly 1743 Elizabeth (d 11 Mar 1759 aged 39), daughter of Thomas Archdale of Ouslethwaite Hall, and d 2 Dec 1757 having had issue,

1a Hugh; died in infancy 31 Dec 1746
1b THOMAS, of whom presently
1a Anne

Thomas Hammersley (1747-1812), banker to the Prince Regent.

THOMAS HAMMERSLEY, banker to the Prince Regent and other members of the Royal Family, of Cadeby Hall, Ludborough, Lincs and Ouslethwaite Hall, Worsbrough, Yorks, which estates he sold; b 1747; educ Trinity College, Cambridge; joined Herries, Farquhar & Co., bankers, of St. James St., London (which firm became part of Lloyds Bank Ltd in 1893) on its formation in 1772; founding partner in 1786 of Ransom, Morland, Hammersley & Co. of 57 Pall Mall, which firm he left in 1796 to become a founding partner of Hammersley, Montolieu, Brooksbank, Greenwood, Drewe & Co. of 76 Pall Mall, which firm became Hammersley, Greenwood, Drewe & Co. in 1806, Hammersley, Greenwood, Brooksbank & Co. in 1823, when the firm moved to 69 Pall Mall, and Hammersley & Co. in 1832 (on the death of Hugh Hammersley, his eldest son, in 1840 the firm was taken over by Coutts & Co); m 1771 Anne (d 1822), daughter of Rev. Francis Greenwood, Rector of Higham Ferrers (of the family of Greenwood of Stapleton Park, Pontefract, Yorkshire, a branch of the family of Greenwood of Greenwood Lee, Heptonstall, Yorks.) and sister of Charles Greenwood (1748-1832), partner of his brother-in-law, Thomas Hammersley, who was also a partner of Cox & Co., founded 1758, of Craig's Court, Whitehall, bankers and army agents (see his portrait by Sir Thomas Lawrence); Anne Greenwood was descended from Edward I through the families of de Clare (Earls of Gloucester and Hertford), de Audley (Earls of Gloucester), de Stafford (Earls of Stafford), de la Pole (Earls of Suffolk), Morley (Lords Morley), Hastings of Gressenhall, Hildyard of Winestead-in-Holderness, Girlington of Frodingham, Kelke of Barnetby and Farrer of Ewood Hall, Mytholmroyd, Yorks. It is related that when Frederick, Duke of York (1763-1827), introduced Charles Greenwood to his father, George III, as "Mr. Greenwood, the gentleman who keeps my money", the army agent ventured to remark "I think it is rather his Royal Highness who keeps my money", a rejoinder which greatly delighted the old King. "Do you hear that? Frederick, do you hear that? You are the gentleman who keeps Mr. Greenwood's money"; he d 1812 having had issue, with four sons and three daughters who died young,

Louis de Montolieu (1761-1853), 3rd Baron of St. Hippolyte (Holy Roman Empire), painted in 1806. His arms were 'Azure, a fleur de lys or between three crescents in chief and as many mullets (stars) in base, argent. Supporters: two eagles regardant, wings extended and invected proper. Motto: 'Deo et principi' and 'Per ardua surge'. Painting at the French Hospital, Rochester, Kent (The first baron was one of the founding directors in 1714 and the second baron was a director in 1759). The text reads 'Louis de Montolieu son of Colonel Louis Charles born 1761'.

1a Hugh, banker; b 1774; Partner of Hammersley & Co., bankers, of Pall Mall, London; educ Eton; m 1822 Marie, 4th Baroness of St. Hippolyte (Holy Roman Empire), elder daughter and heiress of Louis de Montolieu (1761-1853), 3rd Baron of St. Hippolyte, partner of Hammersley & Co. (grandson of David de Montolieu (1668-1761), 1st Baron of St. Hippolyte (sometimes Saint-Hippolite), a barony of the Holy Roman Empire granted by Emperor Joseph I at Vienna on 14/2/1706 and descendible to descendants male and female for ever (Melville Henry Massue, Marquis de Ruvigny, 'The Nobilities of Europe', Melville & Co., London, 1910, Elibron Classics re-print, p. 350)), a Huguenot, General in the Army, who fought for William III at the Battle of the Boyne (1690) having left France following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) and who accompanied William III to England in 1688, see EGLINTON AND WINTON E. and ELIBANK .B); he d 1840 having had issue by her,

1b Hugh Montolieu, 5th Baron of St. Hippolyte (Holy Roman Empire), of Ridgeway, Lymington, Hants; b 1825; educ Eton; a member of the Royal Yacht Squadron (owner of Zoe, a schooner, Water Lily, a yawl, and Oak Apple, a yawl); m 1 Jul 1851 Henrietta (d 16 Mar 1929), daughter of Lt-Gen. Sir Henry Frederick Bouverie, GCB, GCMG, Governor of Malta, see RADNOR E., and Julia Fanny, younger daughter of Louis de Montolieu, 3rd Baron of St. Hippolyte (Holy Roman Empire), and d 1896 having had issue,

1c Diana Emily; b 1852; m 1875 Pearson Frank Crozier (1851-1892), son of Francis Henry Crozier (1812-1906) and his second wife, Harriet née Paske; she d 1880 apparently without issue
2c Constance Maria, 6th Baroness of St. Hippolyte (Holy Roman Empire) from the death of her father in 1896; b 1856; m 25 Oct 1882 Lt. Col. Henry Edward Stopford (b 13 Nov 1841; d 26 Dec 1895), see COURTOWN E.; she d Jan 1930 apparently without issue*
3c Bertha Caroline; b 1858; d 1879

*On her death in 1930, apparently without issue, the Barony of St. Hippolyte appears to have passed (in accordance with the semi-Salic law of succession, as applied to the imperial title itself in the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713) to the heirs of Julia Fanny (above), younger daughter of Louis de Montolieu (1761-1853), 3rd Baron of St. Hippolyte, who married, firstly, William Wibraham, Capt. R. N., and, secondly, Lt-Gen. Sir Henry Frederick Bouverie (1783-1852), GCB, GCMG, Governor of Malta.

By her first husband, William Wibraham, Julia had issue, Emily Anna Wilbraham (d 1862) and Julia Maria Wilbraham (1819-1924).

Emily Anna Wilbraham married in 1843 Admiral Robert Fanshawe Stopford (1811-1891) and had issue (see also http://thepeerage.com/p3779.htm#i37786) Mary Louisa Stopford, Eleanor Anna Stopford (d 3 Sep 1943), Vice-Admiral Robert Wilbraham Stopford (b 24 Jun 1844, d. 9 Jun 1911), Colonel Arthur Bouverie Stopford (b 21 Oct 1845, d 10 Jun 1902), William Edward Stopford (b about 1846-1852, d 29 Apr 1928), Vice-Admiral Frederick George Stopford (b 10 May 1852, d 18 Jan 1928) and Francis James Stopford (b 6 Jul 1857, d 25 Aug 1928).

Julia Maria Wilbraham married in Malta in 1840 Edward Stopford (1809-1905), Capt. R.N. and had issue Lt.Col. Henry Edward Stopford (1841-1895), who m 1882 Constance Maria Hammersley (1856-1930) but apparenlty dsp (see above), Edith Louisa Stopford (1843-1936), who m 1868 Admiral Sir William Robert Kennedy, G.C.B. (and had issue Alice Emily Kennedy (1870-1939), who m 1911 George Walter Stopford (1870-1959)) and Grosvenor Stopford (1845-1875), Cmdr., R.N., who m 1874 Sara Palmer.

By her second husband, Lt-Gen. Sir Henry Frederick Bouverie (1783-1852), Julia had issue Henry (dsp 1854), Capt. Coldstream Guards, who was killed at the Battle of Inkerman, and Henrietta (d 1929), who m 1851 Hugh Montolieu Hammersley (1825-1896), 5th Baron of St. Hippolyte (see above).

2a CHARLES, of whom presently
3a George, banker; b 1785; Partner of Hammersley & Co., bankers, of Pall Mall, London; d unmarried 1835
1a Anne; b 1773; m 1805 William Ward, Bishop of Sodor & Man, and d 1841 leaving issue
2a Caroline; b 1774; m General Sir Henry Calvert, Bt. (1763-1826), see VERNEY OF CLAYDON HOUSE Bt., and d 1806 leaving issue
3a Mary; b 1777; m 1827 Charles Barker; d 1843
4a Diana; b 1783; m Captain (later Rear-Admiral) George Hills RN; d 1854 leaving, with other issue, a son, George (b 1816; d 10 Dec 1895), who became the first Bishop of British Columbia 1859-1892
5a Frances Harriet; b 1788; d 1876
6a Charlotte Emily; b 1789; d 1858

CHARLES HAMMERSLEY, banker, of Park Crescent, London; b 7 Oct 1782; educ Eton; Senior partner of Cox & Co., bankers and army agents, of Craig's Court, Whitehall; m 1809 Emily Poulett-Thomson, daughter of John Buncombe-Poulett-Thomson, of Waverley Abbey House, Farnham, Surrey, senior partner of Thomson, Bonar & Co., of London and St. Petersburg, Russia merchants, see SYDENHAM B. (Burke's 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages') and HUNTINGFIELD OF HEVENINGHAM HALL B., and d 1862 having had issue,

1a Charles, banker, sometime of Lowndes Square, London and Abney House, Bourne End, Bucks; b 24 Aug 1817; educ Eton and Christ Church, Oxford; Senior partner of Cox & Co., bankers and army agents; unmarried; d 29 Dec 1890
2a HUGH, of whom presently
3a Henry, Indian Army; b 1 Mar 1823; educ Eton; Retired from the Army due to ill health; m Caroline, daughter of Col. Lapsley and d 26 Oct 1883 having had issue,

1b Charles Henry; b 1854; Emigrated to Australia; d Oct 1900 in Melbourne
2b Frederick; b 1856; Emigrated to Australia; d 1902
1b Emily; b 1858 and died young

4a Frederick, Major-General, of Ash Grange, Aldershot, Surrey; known as 'the father of Army gymnastics'; b 1824; educ Eton; Commissioned in 14th Foot, The West Yorkshire Regiment 1842; served in the Crimea including the siege and fall of Sebastopol and the assault of 18 Jun 1855 (medal and clasp of the Sardinian medal and the fifth clasp of the Order of the Mejidie - by virtue of which he became a Knight of the Ottoman Empire); founded the Army School of Physical Training at Aldershot; Inspector of Army Gymnasia; co-founder and first chairman of the Amateur Athletics Club 1866 (which became the Amateur Athletics Association in 1880); m 14 Mar 1854 Sarah, daughter of Right Rev. Michael Keating, Dean of Limerick, and d 22 Dec 1901 having had issue,

Major-General Frederick Hammersley CB (1858-1923) Fatal wounding of Major-General Sir William Penn Symons KCB at Talana Hill 1899 (Major Hammersley was with the General as one of his staff officers and was wounded moments before).

1b Frederick, Major-General, CB (1908); b 2 Oct 1858; educ Eton; Commissioned in 20th Foot (Lancashire Fusiliers) 1876, later raised and commanded 4th Battalion; Sudan Expedition 1884-5 (medal and clasp); Nile Expedition 1898, including the Battle of Khartoum (Osmani and Egyptian medals); Staff Officer in the South African War 1899-1900 (severely wounded at Talana Hill 20 Oct 1899); Major-General 1910; Divisional Commander 1914; Deputy Inspector General on lines of communication 1915; commanded 11th Division at the landing at Suvla Bay (Gallipoli Campaign) 6 Aug 1915; retired 1919; m 1891 Edith Letitia (b 1864), daughter of George Grant, and d 1923 having had issue,

1c Frances May of Curles Close, Bucklers Hard, Beaulieu, Hants; b 1891
2c Edith Caroline; b 11 Sep 1897

2b Mary Emily; b 1857; m, as his 2nd wife, 5 Aug 1891 Edward Reginald Courtenay, see DEVON E., and had issue
3b Florence; b 1862; d 1933

1a Emily; b 6 Feb 1810; m 16 Jun 1835 Charles Richard Littledale (b 1807; d 1892) of Scarlets, Wargrave, Berks; d 12 Jan 1878
2a Maria; b 29 Sep 1811; d 1 May 1855
3a Julia; b 18 Mar 1813; m 25 Jul 1836 Edward Jekyll (b 6 Feb 1804; d 26 Mar 1876) of Wargrave Hill, Henley-on-Thames, Capt Grenadier Guards, by whom she had issue five sons and two daughters, including a fourth son, Col. Sir Herbert Jekyll, KCMG, see FREYBERG B., an elder daughter, Caroline (b 16 Mar 1837; d 6 Dec 1928), who m 28 Feb 1865 Frederick Eden (b 1828; d 5 Dec 1916), son of Arthur Eden (1793-1874), of the Palazzo Barbarigo, Venice, author of '
A Garden in Venice' (1903), see EDEN OF WINTON B., and a younger daughter, Gertrude Jekyll (b 29 Nov 1843; d 8 Dec 1932), the well-known gardener; she d 19 Jul 1895

The Palazzo Barbarigo, Venice (purchased by Frederick Eden in 1884).

The Garden of Eden, Island of La Giudecca, Venice, by Henry McCarter (Bacon, Lee, 'Venice Gardens', Century magazine, August 1901) - a 1903 photograph of a similar view is here. The garden was created in 1884 by Frederick Eden (1828-1916) and his wife, Caroline, elder sister of Gertrude Jekyll (1843-1932); it is the largest private garden in Venice and is now a national monument. The church in the background is Palladio's Il Redentore. The garden became a meeting place for poets, philosophers, artists, writers, actors and others, including Eleonora Duse, Gabriele D'Annunzio (who wrote about the garden in his scandalous erotic novel 'The Flame of Life'), Proust, Henry James (the garden apparently inspired him to write 'The Aspern Papers'), Baron Corvo, Lady Lindsay (who wrote a poem about the garden called 'In theTime of Lilies'), and Jean Cocteau (who wrote a poem about the garden called 'Souvenir d'un soir d'automne au jardin Eaden'). After Frederick Eden's death the garden was bought by Sir James Horlick (1886-1972), an officer in the Coldstream Guards, who gave it to Princess Aspasia of Greece (1896-1972). Her daughter, Alexandra, Queen of Yugoslavia (1921-1993), was partly brought up there (she regarded the garden as her true home) and lived there for a time with her husband, ex-King Peter of Yugoslavia (see her memoir ‘For a King’s Love’). After Aspasia's death it was apparently purchased in 1973 by the Austrian artist Hundertwasser (1928-2000), although he later denied owning the garden. On his death it appears to have passed to a company called Gruener Janura AG (c/o Fidiuris GmbH, Gotthardstrasse 3, 6300 Zug and Isola Giudecca 138, 30133 Venezia) and is now (as of 2012) reported to be dilapidated and closed to the public.

Frederick Eden in the Garden of Eden. Photograph from 'A Garden in Venice' (1903). Another view of the garden from 'A Garden in Venice' (1903).

'On La Giudecca, Venice' by Terrick John Williams (1860-1963). A view of the Rio della Croce; the Garden of Eden is on the right. A photograph of this view appears in 'A Garden in Venice' (1903) by Frederick Eden. The church is Santa Maria della Salute.

The entrance to the Garden of Eden today. Listen to the BBC Radio 3 broadcast of 6 July 2012 'Requiem for a Garden of Eden' ('today the garden is locked and no-one answers the bell... so it remains... a kind of sleeping beauty in the heart of Giudecca').

'Mrs. Eden's Garden' (1904) by Mortimer Menpes (Menpes, D. & M., 'Venice', Arthur & Charles Black, London, 1904). 'If the sight of the blue skies fills you with joy, if a blade of grass springing up in the fields has power to move you, if the simple things of nature have a message that you understand, rejoice, for your soul is alive...' - Eleonora Duse (1858-1924). 'The Garden of Eden'. Painting in the collection of Mrs. Pamela Milne.

The Garden of Eden from the Lagoon. The church is Palladio's Il Redentore.

'I know a garden beautiful,
Near by the slumbrous seas;
Tall lilies line its dusky paths -
Les rois des fleurs, les lis -
They spread out as a field of snow
Betwixt the lemon trees.'

'In the Time of Lilies' - Lady Lindsay ('From a Venetian Balcony and Other Poems', 1903).

4a Cecilia; b 22 Aug 1814; m 9 Nov 1840 Henry Stuart (b 1 Jan 1808; d 19 May 1880), see BUTE M., and d 28 Feb 1890 leaving with other issue a daughter Gertrude Mary (d 1905) great-grandmother of Charles Eric Alexander Hambro (1930-2002), see HAMBRO B.
5a Caroline, of Lowndes Square, London and Abney House, Bourne End, Bucks; b 17 Apr 1816; d 1901
6a Catherine; b 28 May 1821; m 30 Nov 1844, as his 2nd wife, Thomas Weguelin MP (d 5 Apr 1885), partner of Thomson, Bonar & Co., of London and St. Petersburg, Russia merchants; Director and then Governor of the Bank of England 1855-56, who m, firstly, Charlotte Poulett-Thomson, see SYDENHAM B. (Burke's 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages'); d 21 Mar 1887 leaving issue
7a Elizabeth; b 4 Dec 1825; m 21 Apr 1849 William Baring (b 1 Dec 1819; d Jun 1906), Capt Coldstream Guards, of Norman Court, Hants, see NORTHBROOK B.; d 6 Nov 1897 leaving with other issue a daughter, Rosa Frederica (b 1854; d 1927), who m, secondly, 25 Nov 1885 Lt. Col George William Adolphus FitzGeorge (b 1843; d 1907), eldest son of Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (b 1819; d 1904), grandson of George III, see 1970 edn CAMBRIDGE M., by whom she had, with other issue, a daughter, Mabel Iris FitzGeorge (1886-1976), 2nd cousin of King George VI, who m, firstly in 1912, Robert Balfour (1869-1942), and, secondly in 1945, Prince Vladimir Galitzine (1884-1954), whereby she became Princess Vladimir Galitzine. By her first marriage Mabel Iris FitzGeorge had issue General Sir Robert (Victor) FitzGeorge-Balfour (1913-1994), Coldstream Guards, who commanded the Brigade of Guards from 1958-1960

Arms of Prince Adolphus, Duke of
Cambridge (1774-1850).
George FitzGeorge (1843-1907)
King George III (1760-1820)
= Princess Charlotte of Mecklenberg-Strelitz (1744-1818)
|
Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850)
= Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797-1889)
/
Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904)
= Sarah Louisa Fairbrother (1816-1890)*
|
George FitzGeorge (1843-1907)
=
Rosa Baring (1854-1927)
|
Mabel Iris FitzGeorge (1886-1976)
= (1) Robert Balfour (1869-1942)
= (2) Prince Vladimir Galitzine (1884-1954)
\
Princess Mary of Cambridge (1833-1897)
= Francis , 1st Duke of Teck (1837-1900)
|
Princess Mary of Teck (1867-1953)
= King George V (1865-1936)
|
King George VI (1895-1952)
= Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002)
*their marriage in 1847 was in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, though it is questionable whether it can have been lawful to outlaw otherwise lawful (i.e. canonically legal) marriages in a Christian country where the laws of the Church, which are binding on the monarch as Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith, rule that marriage is 'an holy estate' 'instituted of God' and that 'those whom God has joined together let no man put asunder'. Of course, the Act only applies in the UK so presumably Prince George's marriage was lawful in Hanover and so did not necessarily affect succession to his title of Prince of Hanover or Duke of Brunswick-Luneberg (held by him and his father) or the order of succession to the throne of Hanover (numerous morganatic marriages were recognised in German states).

Rosa Baring apparently had an affair with Prince Adolphus (1868-1927), 2nd Duke of Teck and 1st Marquess of Cambridge, eldest son of Francis, Duke of Teck (1837-1900) and Princess Mary of Cambridge (1833-1897), by whom she had a daughter, Vera Bate Lombardi (1883-1948), who was brought up by Margaret, 1st Marchioness of Cambridge, sister-in-law of Queen Mary (Princess Mary of Teck), wife of King George V (it was a loan from Rosa Baring's father, William Baring, that allowed the Teck family to return to the UK and which therefore opened the way for Princess Mary of Teck to marry the future King George V). The fact that Vera Bate Lombardi was brought up by the royal family demonstrates conclusively that she was accepted by the royal family as a daughter of the 1st Marquess of Cambridge. Vera married, secondly, Prince Alberto Lombardi, and moved to Rome. She was suspected by the Italian government of being a spy during World War II. She was probably in touch during the war with her second cousin, Sir D'Arcy Osborne (1884-1964), later 12th Duke of Leeds, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Holy See 1936-1947, who was involved in a 1940 plot to kill Hitler, running an escape organisation for Allied soldiers and Jews and intelligence gathering. Another second cousin via the Hammersleys, Sir Ronald Hugh Campbell (1883-1953), Ambassador to Portugal during World War II, was also involved in espionage (Lisbon was a hotbed of spies during the war). Vera Bate Lombardi worked with Coco Chanel and introduced her to London society, including to Hugh Grosvernor (1879-1953), 2nd Duke of Westminster, with whom Coco Chanel had a 10-year affair, and the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII). Lombardi was the inspiration for Chanel's famous 'English Look'.

See here for the connections between the Eden, Hammersley, Poulett-Thomson and Baring families.

Coco Chanel (left) and Vera Bate Lombardi (right) visiting the Duke of Westminster's Reay
estate in Scotland in 1925 and dressed up in his clothes.

Warren House, Kingston-upon-Thames

HUGH HAMMERSLEY, banker, sometime of Sun House, Chelsea; Cromwell Gardens, London and Warren House, Kingston-upon-Thames; b 15 Mar 1819; educ Eton; Partner of Cox & Co., bankers and army agents; m 23 Jan 1856 Dulcibella Eden (d 1903), daughter of Arthur Eden (1793-1874) of Harrington Hall, Spilsby, Lincolnshire, Assistant-Comptroller of the Exchequer, see EDEN OF WINTON B., and Frances Baring (d. 1877), see NORTHBROOK B., née Poulett-Thomson, see SYDENHAM B. (Burke's 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages'); Charlotte Rosa Baring, her younger daughter by her first marriage to William Baring (1779-1820), was the 'Maud’ of Tennyson’s poem of that name (Rader, R. W. ‘Tennyson’s “Maud”: The Biographical Genesis’, UCP, 1992); d 28 Sep 1882 having had issue,

Charlotte Rosa Baring, younger daughter of William Baring (1779-1820) and Frances Poulett-Thomson (d. 1877). She was the inspiration for Tennyson's 'Maud'. The garden in that poem is the garden of Harrington Hall, Spilsby, Lincolnshire; the 'Eden where she dwelt' in Tennyson's poem 'The Gardener's Daughter'.

Dulcibella Eden (d 1903), half-sister of Charlotte Rosa Baring (above), grandmother of the 12th Duke of Leeds, great-grandmother of the 7th Duke of Sutherland.

1a Arthur Charles, banker, of Princes Gate, London; b 22 Dec 1856; educ Eton; Partner of Cox & Co., bankers and army agents; m, firstly, 2 Sep 1882 Mary Louisa (d 12 Nov 1899), daughter of Col. George Herbert Frederick Campbell (b 19 Jun 1811; d 2 Sep 1856) of Evenley Hall, Brackley, Northants, see CAWDOR E., by whom he had issue,

1b Hugh Charles; b 23 Feb 1892; educ Eton; unmarried
1b Gwendoline Mary; b 1884; m 1908 George Henry Draper Post and d 13 Jan 1948 leaving issue
2b Cynthia Edith; b 1886; d 29 Feb 1955
3b Doris Maud; b 1890; d 8 Mar 1944

He m, secondly, 15 Apr 1902 Violet Mary (b 28 Mar 1877; d 1962), daughter of William Peere Williams-Freeman (b 1834; d 1884), see WILLIAMS-FREEMAN (BLG); see the chapter on her in Diana Mosley's (née Mitford) book 'Loved Ones', Sidgwick & Jackson, 1985 (she was called 'Mrs. Ham' by the Mitford sisters) and also her portrait 'Violet Hammersley' by Philip Wilson Steer 1907 (Art Gallery of New South Wales, Australia); he d 15 Apr 1912 having had issue by her,

'Violet Hammersley' (1877-1962) (Violet Williams-Freeman) by Philip Wilson Steer (1907), (Art Gallery of New South Wales, Australia)

1b Christopher Ralph, of Wilmington, Cliff Road, Totland Bay, Isle of Wight; b 4 Jan 1903; educ Eton; m, firstly, 1931 Amelia Cowing of New York (d 1973), secondly, 1977 Mary Patterson, by whom he had no issue
2b David Frederick; b 15 Jul 1904; educ Eton; m 1932 – Martin; d 19 Apr 1945 leaving issue,

1c Patricia; b 1933

1b Monica Violet; b 28 Oct 1907; m 1932 David Dominic Stokes and had issue

2a Hugh Greenwood, banker, of Sackville St, London and The Grove, Hampstead; b 4 Jul 1858; educ Eton; Partner of Cox & Co., bankers and army agents, which became Cox's & King's in 1922, until the firm was taken over by Lloyds Bank Ltd in 1923; m, firstly, 30 Aug 1889 Mary Frances (b 1863; d 1911), see her portrait 'Mrs Hugh Hammersley' by John Singer Sargent 1892 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), daughter of Gen. Owen Edward Grant and Adelaide, daughter of Gen. Sir George Powell Higginson, GCB, GCVO, KCB, Grenadier Guards, Col. of the 94th Regiment, see Lady Butler's painting 'The Roll Call' 1874 (Royal Collection), and Frances Elizabeth (d 1890), daughter of Francis Needham, 1st Earl of Kilmorey, see KILMOREY E., by whom he had issue,

'Mrs. Hugh Hammersley' (1863-1911) (Mary Frances Grant) by John Singer Sargent (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York).

1b Eve Mary; b 1891; d 24 May 1902

He m, secondly, 11 Jan 1913 Mabel Elizabeth Lilford, by whom he had no issue, and d 6 Aug 1930. See her portrait, 'Mrs. Hugh Hammersley' (1913), by Philip Wilson Steer in the Government Art Collection.

3a Guy; b 27 Jan 1871; educ Eton
1a Margaret Dulcibella; b 1861; m 13 Jan 1883 Sydney Francis Godolphin Osborne (b 29 Mar 1835; d 9 May 1889), see 1953 edn LEEDS D., by whom she had issue three sons; Sir Francis D'Arcy Godolphin Osborne KCMG (b 16 Sep 1884; d 20 Mar 1964), 12th and last Duke of Leeds, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Holy See 1936-1947, who was portrayed in the 1983 film 'The Scarlet & The Black' starring Gregory Peck; Sidney Hugh Godolphin Osborne (1887-1958); Maurice Godolphin Osborne, Capt. 3rd Battalion,
Rifle Brigade, Mentioned in Despatches (b 1889; killed in action 25 Feb 1915, buried Bailleul Communal Cemetery (Nord) (also here)); she d 22 Oct 1903

Maurice Godolphin Osborne, Capt. 3rd Battalion, Rifle Brigade, Mentioned in Despatches (b 1889; killed in action 25 Feb 1915) Maurice Godolphin Osborne (1889-1915)

Sir D'Arcy Osborne (1884-1964), 12th and last Duke of Leeds. In 1940 he took part in a plot to overthrow Hitler, involving Pope Pius XII and key German Generals, and he was actively involved in the underground escape organisation, led by Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty, which concealed some 4000 escapees, both Allied soldiers and Jews, from the Nazis. It was mainly his efforts that prevented any large-scale Allied bombing of Rome during the invasion of Italy. Major Sam Derry, in his 'Escape Line', described meeting Sir D'Arcy Osborne in the Vatican in 1943: 'Unruffled poise... Seldom have I met any man in whom I had such immediate confidence. He welcomed us warmly, yet I found it impossible to behave with anything but strict formality. Apart from the restraining influence of my clothing [he was not used to being disguised as a monsignor] I was almost overwhelmed by an atmosphere of old-world English courtliness and grace which I had thought belonged only to the country-house parties of long ago. Sir D'Arcy was spry, trim, a young sixty, but he had spent years enough in the diplomatic service to develop an astonishing aptitude for creating around himself an aura of all that was most civilized in English life. I felt as though I had returned home after long travels, to find that royalty had come to dinner, and I had to be on my best behaviour.' After this dinner Sir D'Arcy 'offered him the command of the escape organisation'. See Chadwick, Owen, 'Britain and the Vatican During the Second World War', Cambridge Paperback Library, 1988. D'Arcy Osborne was a close life-long friend of the late Queen Mother (Dorothy Osborne, a daughter of the 10th Duke of Leeds, married the Queen Mother's brother, Patrick Bowes-Lyon, 15th Earl of Strathmore) and he was one of the few people to whom the Queen Mother went for private advice on important issues (details of their correspondence are recorded in the official biography of the Queen Mother by William Shawcross). Towards the end of his life D'Arcy Osborne became almost destitute (he had given a lot of his own money to the underground escape organisation run by O'Flaherty) and the Queen Mother helped him financially.

2a Dora Edith; b 1862; m Sir Francis Alexander Campbell (b 1852; d 1911), son of Col. George Herbert Frederick Campbell (b 19 Jun 1811; d 2 Sep 1856) of Evenley Hall, Brackley, Northants, see CAWDOR E., and had, with other issue, Ivan (b 1887) and Mabel (b 1891), an elder son, Sir Ronald Hugh Campbell, PC, GCMG (1883-1953), Ambassador to France (1939-1940) and Portugal (1940-1945), who married Helen Graham (d 1949) and had issue, with a son, Capt Robin Francis Campbell, DSO (d 1985), No. 8 (Guards) Commando (forerunner of the SAS), who lost a leg and was captured while leading 'Operation Flipper' (see here also), the commando raid of 1941 to assassinate General Rommel, a daughter, Mary Campbell (1909-1949), who married Cyril Reginald Egerton (1905-1992) and had issue, with three daughters, an only son, Francis Ronald Egerton (b 1940), 7th Duke of Sutherland, see SUTHERLAND D. Robin Campbell wrote of his time in a prisoner-of-war camp: 'It is quite impossible for the Germans to put across any Herrenvolk stuff in the face of the innocent arrogance of British soldiers, who are impenetrable to the idea of German superiority and simply think it uproariously funny. This baffles the Germans.'
3a Mabel Barbara; b 1864; m 27 Oct 1887 Walter Nassau Senior (b 16 Mar 1850; d 20 Oct 1933), barrister, of 98 Cheyne Walk, London; she d 19 Mar 1943 having had issue (see lineage of Senior above)
4a Maud Emily; b 1866; m 26 Oct 1891 Sir Henry Duff-Gordon, Bt. (b 12 Jan 1866; d 9 Jan 1953), see DUFF-GORDON Bt., and d 5 May 1951 having had issue
5a Beatrice Caroline; b 1868; m 20 Jul 1898 Philip Apsley Treherne (b 1872; d 1922) and d 1953 having had issue
6a Sylvia Katherine; b 1876

Margaret Hammersley (1861-1903), mother of Sir D'Arcy Osborne, 12th Duke of Leeds.

Maud Emily Hammersley (Lady Duff-Gordon) (1866-1951)

Mabel Barbara Hammersley (1864-1943) by Sir James Jebusa Shannon (1862–1923)

Beatrice Hammersley (1868-1953)

Sylvia Hammersley (b 1876)


Arms

Arms (of Sir Hugh Hamersley): Gules, three rams heads couped or. The arms granted to Thomas Hammersley (1747-1812) in 1803 were gules, three rams heads couped erminois.
Crest: A demi-griffin segreant or, in the dexter claw a cross-crosslet fitchee, gules.
Motto: 'Honore et amore'.


Note: Hugh Hamersley (1663-1714), Vicar of Roxby, may have been the great-grandson of Sir Hugh Hamersley (1565-1636) via his third son, William (1617-1676), rather than his grandson via Sir Hugh's second son, Francis (1613-1659), as is generally thought (Francis is often stated to have died in 1665). According to Burke's 'Landed Gentry' this William married an Elizabeth Cogan (1626-1706) in 1660 and had a son called Hugh (1663-1718, but 1646-1692 according to Boyd's 'Inhabitants of London'), ancestor of the Ducat-Hamersley family of Pyrton Manor. However, there is a record of a Hugh Hamersley who was born 25 Dec 1642 at Kencott, Oxon. Given the 1660 marriage of William and Elizabeth (which may be the wrong date), I believe that this Hugh might be the son of William (1617-1676) by an earlier marriage (i.e. before his marriage to Elizabeth Cogan) and that he (Hugh b. 1642) might have been the father of Hugh (1663-1714), ancestor of the 'London Hammersleys'. I believe that Hugh (b. 1642) may have married a Katherine Finch in Cambridge (St. Mary the Great) on 3 Dec 1662 and that this Katherine may be the Katherine who died in Roxby, Lincs. (where Hugh (1663-1714) was Vicar) in 1699. A Hugh Hamersley, son of a Katherine and Hugh Hamersley was Christened at St. Botolph Without, Aldersgate, London, on 29 Nov 1663. I believe that Hugh (b. 1642) may have married a second wife, Anne Preston (b. 1656) on 22 Dec 1671. Both of Sir Hugh's two elder sons, Sir Thomas (dsp 1651) and Francis (died without issue in 1659 according to Boyd's 'Inhabitants of London' - and his will does not mention any children), seem to have died without issue. Note that the birth date of 1646 may refer to the will of Mary Hamersley, wife of Sir Hugh, so that 1646 means 'mentioned in a will of 1646' but possibly actually born in 1642 (25 Dec) as above.


Lineage of Hughes

US branches of the family are in blue

Bookplate of Margaret Hughes (1797-1887) of Donnington Priory, Berks.

The progenitor of this family, Mwyndeg Hughes of Liverpool (d 1712), was the son of a Mr. Hughes of 'Gelle Fawlor' (recte 'Gelli-ffowler'), near Ysceifiog in Flintshire. The family appears to be a branch of the Hughes family of Pant Gwyn, Ysceifiog, who were descended in the male line from Edwin (d 1073), Prince (sometimes referred to as King) of Tegeingl (that is the commotes of Rhuddlan, Coleshill and Prestatyn), founder of the 12th Noble Tribe of Wales, through an ancestor of the same name, Mwyndeg, whose pedigree is given in 19th century Hughes family papers (based on research carried out in the 'Shrewsbury records' by a Mr. Morris) as:

Mwyndeg ap* Bel ap Daffydd Lloyd ap Dafydd ap Cynrig ap Jevan ap Gruffyd ap Madoc Dhu ap Rhirid ap Llywelyn ap Owain Trefynnon ap Aldud ap Owain ap Edwin, King of Tegeingl

* 'ap' means 'son of'

The descent of Bel ap Daffydd Lloyd from Madoc Dhu ('the Black') (d before 22 Apr 1301*), Lord of Copa'r Goleuni, or 'The Hill of Light' (Gop Hill, Trelawnyd, legendary burial site of Boudica), is confirmed by a memorial stone to Bell Lloyd (d 1589), second of that name, being the grandson of Bel ap Daffyd Lloyd above, in the churchyard of St. Michael and All Angels, Trelawnyd, nr. Prestatyn**. The descent of Madoc Dhu from Edwin is given in public sources, though it is now thought that Aldud may have been an adopted, not natural, son of Owain ap Edwin - possibly a kinsman of Gruffyd ap Cynan, Prince of Gwynedd (d 1137)***. Edwin was the son of a Saxon princess, Ethelfleda or Aldgyth, daughter of Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and he appears to have acquired Tegeingl as his inheritance out of the pre-Conquest Earldom of Mercia; the identity of his father is uncertain. Various families who are descended from Edwin, including Wynn of Copa'r Leni and Hughes (originally named Pennant it seems) of Terfyn, owned land within Tegeingl into modern times, and some may yet remain, making them possibly the longest-established landowners in the country. See Meyrick, Sir Samuel Rush, 'Heraldic Visitations of Wales and Part of the Marches', London, 1896, Vol. 2, p. 299 for Wynn of Copa'r Leni and p. 305 for Pennant of Tre'r Ffynon. Mwyndeg ap Bell is shown on p. 297 where Edward ap Hugh ap Rhys ap Mwyndeg marries Janet Conway of Bodryddan.

Gop Hill or 'The Hill of Light', legendary burial site of Boudica (under a cairn called 'The Hill of Arrows' - where many ancient arrowheads have been found) and spiritual home of the Hughes family, from the south. The village is Trelawnyd. Apparently, it is possible, on a clear day, to see both Ireland and Scotland from top of Gop Hill (842 ft).

*The date Madoc Dhu's son Gruffyd paid homage to Prince Edward, later Edward II, as Earl of Chester.

**The engraving reads: 'DYMA LLE MAY YN GORFETH BELL LLOYD AP EDWARD AP BELL AP DD AP DD [AP] KENDRICK AP EVAN AP GRIFFETH AP MADOCK DDV A FV FAROW Y 8 DYDD OF YES MAI ANNO DO 1589'. Bell Lloyd was of the family of Lloyd of Henfryn (Henfryn is about 2km SW of Trelawnyd).

Memorial stone of Bell Lloyd dated 1589. At the bottom of the picture is the top portion of a rendering of the arms of Madoc Dhu (see illustration below). Newmarket has now been renamed Trelawnyd.

***The Peniarth Ms 131, written by Ieuan Brechfa about the year 1500, tells us that Aldud 'held all of Tegeingl by spear and sword for three years over a grievance with its Lord, for which act he then received a pardon from the king'; this must have been the three years following 1125 when Cadwallon ap Gruffudd ap Cynan killed three sons of Owain ap Edwin when they refused to accept the overlordship of Gruffudd ap Cynan as Prince of Gwynedd. Note that Gruffyd ap Madoc Dhu, above, married Gwladys, daughter of Owain ap Bleddyn ap Owain Brogyntyn, son of Madog ap Maredudd (d 1160), Prince of Powys, whose wife, Susanna (daughter of Gruffudd ap Cynan, Prince of Gwynedd), was a great-granddaughter of Edwin of Tegeingl through her mother, Angharad, daughter of Owain ap Edwin of Tegeingl. This means that there is at least one line (and there are undoubtedly many more) from Jevan ap Gruffyd ap Madoc Dhu, above, to Edwin of Tegeingl as follows:

Jevan ap Gwladys ferch* Owain ap Bleddyn ap Owain Brogyntyn ap Susanna ferch Angharad ferch Owain ap Edwin of Tegeingl

* 'ferch' means 'daughter of'

According to these 'Shrewsbury records', Thomas of Pant Gwyn, son of Mwyndeg ap Bel, above, married Janet, daughter of Gruffyd ap Dafydd ap Ithel Fychan, descended from Ednowain Bendew, founder of the 13th Noble Tribe. See Meyrick, Sir Samuel Rush, 'Heraldic Visitations of Wales and Part of the Marches', London, 1896, Vol. 2, p. 298 under Caerwys ('Keyrws'). He had issue Hugh, who married Agnes, daughter of Thomas ap Edward, sister of Morgan ap Thomas of Golden Grove (as stated in Burke's 'History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland', 1835, under 'Morgan of Golden Grove'). He had issue Edward, of Ysceifiog, who was of the first generation of this family to adopt the surname of Hughes, and who may have been the father or grandfather of Mr. Hughes of 'Gelle Fawlor', father of Mwyndeg Hughes of Liverpool. This would make the descent of Edward Hughes from Edwin as follows:

Edward ap Hugh ap Thomas ap Mwyndeg ap Bel ap Daffydd Lloyd ap Dafydd ap Cynrig ap Jevan ap Gruffyd ap Madoc Dhu ap Rhirid ap Llywelyn ap Owain Trefynnon ap Aldud ap Owain ap Edwin, King of Tegeingl

that is 16 generations covering a period of about five and a half centuries.

Edward had a daughter, Mary, who married John Wynn of Llanverres(?), possibly modern Llanferres, who is not mentioned as Edward's heir, indicating that he had other issue. A relative of John Hughes (1790-1857) at the time, a Mrs. Foulkes, stated that the Hughes family were cousins of the Wynn(e) family of Coed Coch (nr Betws-yn-Rhos) 'making it probable that we came of this Edward Hughes, Mary Wynn's father', according to John Hughes.

Given that Mwyndeg Hughes of Liverpool was married in 1707, he was certainly born not later than the last quarter of the 17th century, that is 1675-1700, and possibly earlier, given that he died in 1712. His father, Mr. Hughes of 'Gelle Fawlor', was therefore probably born in the mid-1600s, that is 1650-1675. Thomas ap Mwyndeg ap Bel was of the same generation as the Bell Lloyd ap Edward ap Bel (both being grandsons of the same Bel ap Dafydd), who died in 1589, so it is not unreasonable to assume that Thomas' son, Hugh, could have lived into the first quarter of the 17th century, that is 1600-1625, which means that Hugh's son, Edward, could have lived into the next quarter of the 17th century, that is 1625-1650. On this basis, Edward, of Ysceifiog, could have been the father or grandfather of Mr. Hughes of 'Gelle Fowler'. See here for lists of the inhabitants of Ysceifiog in 1681 and 1686; there are several Hughes families amongst whom might be the Mr. Hughes of 'Gelle Fowler', but this requires further investigation (note that these lists show the name of the head of the household, the number of people in the household and the ages of all in the household under the age of 18).

In a note written in February 1856, John Hughes (1790-1857), explained: 'From the peculiar name of my great-grandfather [Mwyndeg] and his nativity at Ysceifiog I conceive that he belonged to these folk [the Hughes of Pant Gwyn].' He also wrote: 'Our a/c by Mrs. Foulkes and all my father ever heard as a boy was that Gelle Fawlor in that parish was the estate and house owned by our immediate people which they got out of some 150 years ago [i.e. around 1700].', so it is evident that the connection to Gelle Fawlor ('Gelli-ffowler') and Ysceifiog was family knowledge long before the research carried out by Mr. Morris in the 'Shrewsbury records'.

The name Mwyndeg appears only to occur in this branch of the Hughes family, though it is not unknown elsewhere, and means 'gentle and fair, tender, genial, affable'.


MWYNDEG HUGHES (d 1712), sea captain and merchant adventurer of Liverpool; born at Ysceifiog, son of a Mr. Hughes of 'Gelle Fawlor' (recte 'Gelli-ffowler')* in that parish; m 1707 at Chester, Elizabeth Wood, sister and co-heir of Thomas Wood of Hillingdon, of the 'Daily Advertiser', and had issue,

1a THOMAS, of whom we treat
2a Mundick or Mwyndeg (bapt 1712), no further information
1a Elizabeth (bapt 1709), no further information

*According to local historian, Hazel Formby of Tan-y-Llan, Ysceifiog, Gelli-ffowler was ultimately acquired by Flintshire County Council and split into at least five farms.

THOMAS HUGHES (1710-1776), Clerk in Holy Orders; educ Trinity Hall, Cambridge; 'having narrowly escaped in his youth the consequences of a Jacobite plot in which several of the sons of the Welsh gentry were involved' (see Burke's 'Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland', 1847, Vol. I, p. 612 under HUGHES OF DONNINGTON PRIORY), he became Headmaster of Ruthin School (Denbigh, North Wales) from 1739 and later Rector of Llanfwrog and Llansilyn; m Elizabeth (1720-1756, memorial in St. Peter's Church, Ruthin), daughter of Norfolk Salusbury of Plas-y-Ward, Denbigh, a branch of the family of Salusbury of Lleweni (see SALUSBURY OF LLEWENI, Burke's 'Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies'), who were descended from Maurice Wynn of Gwydir (d 1580), senior male heir of the Princes of Gwynedd, and Katheryn (Catherine) Tudor of Berain (d 1591), known as 'Mam Gwalia' or 'The Mother of Wales', grand-daughter, via her mother, Jane Velville, of Sir Roland de Velville (1474-1535), Constable of Beaumaris Castle, a natural son of Henry VII (according to the Dictionary of Welsh Biography), and had issue,

Kathryn Tudor of Berain (1534-1591), known as 'Mam Gwalia' ('The Mother of Wales') by Lucas de Heere (1568)

1a Robert, HEICS, Rector of Gwyddelwern (1801-09), Llantysilio (Llangollen) (1838-43), Gwaunysgor (1843-46) and Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain (from 1846). He m Frances Welsh and had issue two sons, Robert, who dsp, and Valentine (1785-1813), HEICS, who dsp, and a daughter, Frances (Fanny), who married her first cousin, Archdeacon Newcome (see below)
2a THOMAS HUGHES, of whom we treat
1a Elizabeth m Rev. Henry Newcome, Warden of Ruthin, and d 1783 having had issue Henry (author of
'The Autobiography of Henry Newcome, M.A.'), Thomas (1777-1851), Rector of Shenley, Herts, from 1802-1849, who married Charlotte, daughter of Thomas Winter of Shenley Hill (now Shenley Hall), Richard, Archdeacon of Merioneth, who married his first cousin Frances (see above), Elizabeth and Maria (The Newcome family were settled at Saltfle(e)tby, Lincolnshire from the time of Richard I; see BLG 1972 for a history of the family and also Burke's 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages' under 'VISCOUNT NEWCOMEN')
2a Anne m John (or possibly W) Fryer of Taplow Lodge, Taplow, Bucks, a 'rich Welsh squire', and d at Wrexham on 14 Mar 1817 without issue.

He m, secondly, Margaret Salusbury (or possibly Salesbury), cousin of his first wife, who d April 1799, aged 81

THOMAS HUGHES (1756-1833), Clerk in Holy Orders and a Doctor of Divinity, of Amen Corner, St. Paul's, London and Uffington, Berkshire; appointed tutor to the younger children of George III, namely the Dukes of Cumberland, Sussex and Cambridge, in 1777; Clerk of the Closet to George III and IV; Perpetual Curate of Putney (1788-1803); Prebendary of Westminster Abbey (1793-1807); Rector of Peasemore, Bucks (1801-1807); Chaplain to the Duke of Cumberland (1802); Rector of Turweston, Bucks (1802-1804); Prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral (1807-1833); Residentiary Canon of St. Paul's (1807-1833); Vicar of Chiswick (1808-1809); Rector of St. Mary's, Cilcain, Flints (1809-1826); Vicar of Uffington, Berks (1816-1833); m Mary Anne (1770-1853), daughter of Rev. George Watts, Vicar of Uffington (d. 1810), son of Rev. George Watts, Vicar of Uffington, Chaplain to George II and Master of the Temple Church, son of Rev. Henry Watts, Vicar of Uffington; a friend of Sir Walter Scott she wrote 'Letters and Recollections of Sir Walter Scott' (Ed. Horace G. Hutchinson, London, Smith Elder, 1904); they had an only child,

'Squire Brown, J.P., for the County of Berks' - John Hughes (1790-1857), an illustration from 'Tom Brown's Schooldays'.

JOHN HUGHES (1790-1857), JP, author, artist, antiquarian, poet, (he wrote the poem from which the motto of the Grand National Archery Society was taken - 'Union, Trueheart and Courtesie'), of Uffington House, Uffington, Berks, later of Donnington Priory, Newbury, Berks (from 1833) and latterly of 7 The Boltons, West Brompton, London (from 1852) (see his entry in DNB); educ at Westminster and Oriel College, Oxford; author of 'Itinerary of Provence and the Rhone' (1822) and 'The Boscobel Tracts' (1830); he was 'Squire Brown', the archetypal English squire immortalised in 'Tom Brown's Schooldays', which was written by his second son, Thomas (see below); he m, firstly, Elizabeth Cook, who died in 1819, aged 22, having had issue a daughter, Henrietta Maria, who died in the same year, aged 6 months (memorial in St. Mary's, Uffington); he m, secondly in 1820, Margaret Elizabeth (1797-1887 at Rugby, Tennessee, where she moved in 1881 following the death of her daughter, Jane), daughter of Thomas Wilkinson of Stokesley Castle (or Manor), Stokesley, Yorkshire, and had issue,

'Dear, dear Donnington' - Donnington Priory, nr. Newbury, Berks, with the River Lambourne. Home of the Hughes family from 1833 to 1852. Donnington Priory features in 'The 39 Steps' as the sanctuary in Berkshire to which Richard Hannay fled from Scotland.

1a George Edward Hughes (1821-1872), barrister at the ecclesiastical bar, of Offley Place; educ at Rugby and Oxford; noted amateur cricketer and oarsman (he captained the Oxford boat that won the famous Henley boat race of 1843 with a crew of seven men), 'the simplest and most modest of country gentlemen' according to his obituary in The Times; he m his third cousin Anne (1831-1903) (being the grand-daughter of Elizabeth Salusbury's (d 1756) brother, Robert (d 1776) of Cotton Hall, Denbigh), daughter of Samuel Steward, who was adopted by her mother's cousin, Elizabeth, Lady Salusbury (1793-1867), of Offley Place, Great Offley, Herts, widow of Sir Thomas Robert Salusbury, Bt (1783-1835), and had issue (who appear to have adopted the surname Salusbury-Hughes),

Offley Place, Great Offley, Hertfordshire

1b George Herbert Salusbury (1853-1926), JP, last Squire of Offley; m 1888 Henrietta Louisa Beale (1856-1944) and had issue,

1c Guy Salusbury (1882-1955); m, firstly, Edith Mildred Mary Maude and had issue,

A Mosquito of 23 Squadron over Malta in June 1943.

1d Kendrick Salusbury (b 1910; killed in action 21 Jul 1943, Malta), DFC; Squadron Leader, 23 Squadron, RAF Volunteer Reserve; m Audrey Stuart (1911-1998) and had issue,

1e David Salusbury (1936-1998); m Isobel Symington and had issue,

1f Roderick
2f Nicholas
1f Judith
2f Victoria
3f Hester
4f Phoebe

1e Pauline; m Patrick McGrath and has issue,

1f Patrick
1f Josephine (b 1958), who m and has issue
2f Annette Patricia (b 1961)
3f Veronica (b 1964), who m and has issue

He m, secondly, Dorothy -

2c John Salusbury ('Jack'); m Erica Chittenden and had issue,

1d Jaqueline; m 1935 Kenneth ('Kate') Savill (d 2008), CVO, DSO, of Chilton Manor, Chilton Candover, Hants, Col. 12th Royal Lancers, a Member of the HM Bodyguard of Gentleman at Arms (1955-76), and had issue,

1e Jill (d 1942)
2e Susan (b 1941)
3e Pamela (b 1942)

2b Edward Mwyndeg (1855-1881), d unm
3b Walter John ('Jack') (b 1858), m Olive Boyer and had issue,

1c Mabel Luz Olivette; m 1914 Vivian Mortlock Studd (b 1891), Chev. Order of the Crown (Italy), Lt. 5th Battalion, Rifle Brigade, of the family of Oxton House, Kenton, Devon, and had issue,

1d John Alnod Peter Studd, Pilot Officer (Spitfire Mk III), 66 Squadron; b. 1918, killed in action 19 Aug 1940
1d Deidre
2d Lavender

Pilot Officer John Alnod Peter Studd, 66 Squadron RAF,
killed in action 19 August 1940, aged 22.
'Never was so much owed by so many to so few' - Winston Churchill, 20 August 1940.
Wartime RAF poster.

4b Reginald George Holton (b 1860); Lt. Col. Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry, of Offley; m Marian Graham and had issue,

1c Edward Reginald Graham (1896-1915); 2nd Lieut. Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry; killed in action 25 Sep 1915
2c Graham; killed in a flying accident
1c Diana
2c Nancy
3c Margaret; m, firstly (div), R Yule and, secondly, Kenneth Ware

Thomas Hughes (1822-1896) - Christian Socialist, author of 'Tom Brown's Schooldays' and one of the founders of the Trade Union Movement. For many years a portrait of him hung in Congress House, headquarters of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), but it appears to have been removed. 'All through his life he strove passionately and ardently for those things in which he believed, deterred neither by the prejudices of the class to which he belonged nor by the strength of the forces arrayed against him. And in the end persistence sometimes won what love and good-fellowship alone could not have accomplished. Were Tom alive today he would still know which way to head, and would be trudging straight down the road that leads there, perhaps drawing with him some of the faint of heart. It would be good to have him with us.' (Mack, Edward. C. & Armytage, W. H. G., 'Thomas Hughes', Ernest Benn Ltd, London,1952).

2a Thomas Hughes (1822-1896), MP, QC, barrister, of Wimbledon, later of Park Street, Mayfair, London, and, from 1885, of 'Uffington', Dee Hills Park, Chester (see his entry in DNB); educ at Rugby (1834-1842) and Oriel College, Oxford (1842-1844); trained at Lincoln's Inn (1845-1846) and called to the bar in 1847. In 1848 he joined with Rev. Frederick Maurice (1805-1872) and Charles Kingsley (1819-1875) to found the Christian Socialist Movement. In the same year they started a paper called 'Politics for the People' and in 1850 Hughes helped to set up the Society for Promoting Working Men's Associations. He was one of the early influences behind the formation of the Trade Union Movement of which he later became, as a barrister and QC (appointed 1869), a trusted legal expert and political adviser, being a member of the parliamentary committee of the Trades Union Congress. In 1854 the night classes that the Christian Socialists had been holding led to the formation of the Working Men's College, of which Thomas Hughes was principal from 1873 to 1883. He was actively involved in the Co-operative Congress, as its first President, and the Co-operative Wholesale Society. He was the Member of Parliament for Lambeth from 1865 to 1868 and then Frome from 1868 to 1874, where he represented the working class interest, and was appointed a County Court Judge for Chester in 1882. Towards the end of his life he drew apart from the Trade Union Movement and by 1892 had come to the conclusion that the Conservatives had done more for social legislation than the Liberals. He was the author of 'Tom Brown's Schooldays' (1856), 'The Scouring of the White Horse' (1859), 'Tom Brown at Oxford' (1861), 'Religio Laici' (1868), 'Life of Alfred the Great' (1869)', 'Memoir of a Brother', 'Early Memories for the Children' (1899) and other works; founder of the co-operative settlement of Rugby, Tennessee, which is now 'Historic Rugby'. He died in Brighton in 1896 and was buried in Woodvale Cemetery, Brighton on 25 March 1896; he m 1847 Anne Frances ('Fanny') (1826-1901), daughter of Rev. Dr. James Ford (d 1877), Prebendary of Exeter, son of Sir Richard Ford (1758-1806) and had issue,

1b Walter Maurice (1850-1859), drowned in a childhood accident at Sunbury-on-Thames
2b James Ford (1853-1914); emigrated to the USA in 1874 and established a business selling racehorses and polo ponies, dsp
3b John (1856-1888), died of paralysis, dsp
4b Arthur (b 1863), no further information
5b George (b 1865); emigrated to the USA in 1882 and became a rancher in Kansas, establishing his own ranch at Stanley Farm, Rochester Road, North Topeka; m Lena Cogdell and had issue,

1c Thomas; m Marjorie Carlton and has issue,

1d Nancy

2c George (d 1960); m Nancy Clyne (d 1989) and had issue,

1d Roger, attorney of Texas, m 1977 Esther Russell, lay pastor, and has issue,

1e Kelly Sarah (b 1981)
2e Lauren Anne (b 1983)
3e Jordan Elizabeth (b 1987)

1d Suzanne

1c Carolyn; m Harmon D'Agostino and has issue,

1d Sharon; m Benjamin Ramsharran (d 2001) dsp

1b Margaret Evelyn (1851-1856), died of scarlet fever
2b Caroline Mary Henrietta (1854-1906) m Rev. Fraser Cornish of London, but dsp
3b Mary (1860-1941),
'Comrade Mary Hughes', philanthropist (see her entry in DNB), a Quaker and later, after the failure of the General Strike of 1926, a Communist (though she foresaw that Communism would collapse if it did not embrace Christianity), Labour councillor for Stepney and a Justice of the Peace (she was known for paying the fines of poor people who came before her), she dedicated her life to the poor of the East End of London and in 1926 founded the 'Dewdrop Inn' (a pun on 'Do drop in') in Whitechapel, London, a refuge for the destitute, where she lived amongst the transient inhabitants, as a result of which she frequently became lice-ridden, and on account of this it was once said of her that 'Her lice were her glory!'; Gandhi asked to meet her when he visited Britain in 1931; George Lansbury, himself a much-loved figure in the East End, said: 'Our frail humanity only produces a Mary Hughes once in a century.'; dsp

Mary Hughes (1860-1941) - 'She lives as if Christ were in the house next door. Since 1914 she has worn no hat or gloves. She sleeps on a board. She writes only postcards because they save 1/2d. Her food is bread, cheese and tea - and if someone else is hungry she doesn't eat at all.' ('Mary Hughes' by Rosa Hobhouse, published by Rockliff, London in 1949; 'Mary Hughes' by Hugh Pyper, published by the Quaker Home Service in 1985; DNB; 'Stone Upon Stone' by M.Osborn)
4b Lilian (1867-1912) m 1890 Rev. Ernest Courtenay Carter (great-grandson of Henry Reginald Courtenay, Bishop of Exeter, and Lady Elizabeth Howard, daughter of Thomas Howard, 2nd Earl of Effingham), Vicar of St. Judes, a poor parish in London; both drowned in the Titanic disaster leaving no issue

3a John Hughes (1824-1895), Clerk in Holy Orders; Vicar of Longcot, Berks, m Elizabeth Howard (1808-1883), daughter of Thomas Courtenay, brother of William Courtenay (1777-1859), 10th Earl of Devon (see DEVON, E.), but dsp

4a Walter Scott Hughes (1826-1846), Lieut Royal Artillery, who died of malaria 25 Apr 1846 at Fort Canje, Berbice, British Guyana

5a William Hastings Hughes (1833-1909), he set up in business as a sherry importer and was later proprietor of the 'South London Chronicle'; emigrated to New York in 1878 following the death, in 1877, of his sister, Jane (below), with whom he and his children had been living since the death of his first wife; he later went to manage his brother's (Thomas) co-operative settlement at Rugby, Tennessee; m, firstly, Emily (1838-1864), daughter of George Clark (1809-1874), Archdeacon of St. David's, and Anna Eliza Frances née Senior (b 1808) (see lineage of Senior above) and had issue,

1b William George (1859-1902); he emigrated to the USA in 1878 and became a noted 'Texas pioneer', building up a substantial ranch of about 7,000 acres near Boerne, Texas, which was sold after his death in a railway accident (see his biography: Perry, Garland, 'An American Saga - William George Hughes 1859-1902', Boerne, 1994); m 1888 Lucy Caroline Stephenson and had issue,

1c George (b 1892) who m Frona Rice and had issue,

1d Octavia; educ Harvard; sometime of the Museum of Fine Art, Boston
2d Anita (d 1988); educ St. Mary's Hall, San Antonio, Texas, Smith College, North Hampton, MA, and New York University School of Law; attorney in Houston, Texas; sometime Vice-President Austral Oil Co; Corporate Secretary of Floyd Oil Corp; dsp

2c Gerard (b 1895) m Charlotte - (1904-1995) and had issue,

1d Thomas, attorney, of California, m, firstly, Caralisa Pollard and has issue,

1e Gerard Hastings, film-maker, of California
1e Charlotte, investment manager, of California; m Christopher Combs and has issue,

1f Margaret

He m, secondly, Kathy - and has issue,

1e Elizabeth

1d Marion m Tom Steele and has issue,

1e Thomas, investment manager, of California
1e Susan, sometime manager with AT&T, of Massachusetts; m Edwin McMullen, manager with AT&T, and has issue,

1f Charlie
1f Maggie

2d Jean m Dr. E Robert Terhune, dentist, of New Hampshire, and has issue,

1e John, dentist, of New Hampshire; m Pam - and has issue,

1f Conor

2e Robert, NH State Trooper
1e Margaret, MD, of Kentucky; m Will Maragos, MD

3d Anne m Stuart Schaefer and has issue,

1e Katherine, psychologist, of Oregon; m Frank Rey and has issue,

1f Cody
2f Sam

2e Sally, RN, of Wisconsin; m Kent Klagos and has issue,

1f Tim
2f Jodi
3f Jami
4f Dan

1c Jeanie (b 1889), a Jungian therapist, dsp

2b Gerard (1861-1894); he emigrated to the USA in 1882 and became a partner in his elder brother's Texas ranch (see above); accidently drowned off the coast of Massachusetts; dsp
3b Henry (1862-1896); he emigrated to the USA in 1879 and became a partner in his elder brother's Texas ranch (see above) and later worked for John Murray Forbes (see below); drowned in the sinking of the 'Drummond Castle' when it hit a reef at night off the coast of France; dsp
1b Emily Margaret Alison (b 1863); in 1881 she accompanied her grandmother, Margaret Hughes (1797-1887), to her uncle's (Thomas Hughes) co-operative settlement at Rugby, Tennessee; after Margaret Hughes' death in 1887 she went to live with her father and his second wife at Highland Farm, Boston; in 1930 she and her husband moved to Kenya with their son, where it is probable she died after 1936; m 1902 Ainslie Marshall, a former settler at Rugby, and had issue,

1c Henry ('Harry') Marshall (d 1964), established a farm at Sotik, Kenya and appears to have dsp in South Africa

He m, secondly, Sarah (1853-1917), daughter of the great American railway magnate, John Murray Forbes of Boston (1813-1898) (this is the family of John Forbes Kerry (b. 1943), US Secretary of State), and had issue,

1b Walter Scott (1888-1953), a physicist and chemist who was instrumental in developing the glass electrode; m, firstly in 1924 (div 1931), Dorothy (1896-1956), daughter of Edwin Howard Pease and had issue,

1c John Hastings (1925-1985) m, firstly in 1952 (div 1964), Patricia Yarwood ('Cherie') and had issue,

1d John Forbes (b 1955), Associate Professor of Maths, Brown University; m 1992 Cynthia Cardon and has issue,

1e John Hastings Cardon ('Jack') (b 1996)
1e Margaret Cardon ('Meg') (b 1994)

1d Charmienne Sergeant (b 1954) who m, firstly in 1977 (div 1978), John Michael Culbreath and, secondly in 1994, John Wesley Pohlman

He m, secondly in 1965, Shirley Joan Parker

He m, secondly in 1931, Paula Mason (1903-1995) and had issue,

1c Arthur Pelham (b 1943), artist, of New York, m, firstly in 1965 (div 1994), Ingrid Jean Blaufarb (b 1945) and has issue,

1d Aaron (1968-1999), artist, of Paris
1d Stasha (b 1966), film-maker, of New York, m 2005 Sotirios Melissis, composer, of New York

1e Iliana Hughes Melissis (b 15 Mar 2008)

He m, secondly in 1997, Lanie Fleischer (b 1941)

1c Margaret I (1932-1979) m 1955 (div) Robert Sun Choy Young (b 1932) and had issue,

1d Colin Hoe (b 1956); m 1992 Lea Haratani (b 1958) and has issue,

1e Holden Mason (b 1994)
1e Kamila Ren (b 2000)

2c Kathryn Elizabeth (b 1937), playwright and dancer, of Washington; m, firstly in 1955 (div), Keith Woodruff Hoyt (1931-1977) and has issue,

1d Marni (b 1956), who adopted the surname Hughes

She m, secondly in 1965, Edwin Pearl, and, thirdly in 1971, Ralph Rinzler (1934-1994)

1b Dorothea (1891-1952), nurse and philanthropist, a Quaker; educ Milton Academy and Radcliffe College and then trained as a nurse in New York; author of 'Jane Elizabeth Senior: A Memoir' (1915); helped to establish the Warsaw School of Nursing in 1920 (for which she was decorated by the Polish government); worked as a volunteer nurse at the American Farm School, a Quaker establishment, at Salonica, Greece, in 1923/4 helping refugees in the aftermath of the Second Greco-Turkish War (see Loch, Joice Nankivell, 'A Fringe of Blue; An Autobiography', 1968); founded the Quaker 'Friends' College' in Jamaica in 1931, along with other charitable institutions on that island, including a co-operative farm; 'In her personal life she was plain to the point of austerity. Although she inherited a fortune she spent practically none of it on herself. She lived completely simply, usually travelled second class, dressed inconspicuously and made no concessions to current fashions. It was deeds, not words, which counted with her; she abominated sham and hypocrisy and never indulged in uplift talk. She may never have talked about her religion, but she lived a life of devotion to others, a life of self-sacrifice and cheerfulness.' - 'Dorothea Hughes Simmons - A Biography', Education Committee, Jamaica Yearly Meeting of Friends; Joice NanKivell Loch, in her autobiography 'A Fringe of Blue' (1968) wrote this sketch of Dorothea at the Farm School, Salonica: 'Dorothea gave a scholarship to the [school] and at one committee meeting threw a cheque for £25,000 over the table….At the same time she threw a second cheque for £25,000 across for Friends… to start a laboratory to study and combat malaria and blackwater fever…. Dorothea Hughes could drive some members of the unit to madness. She was extremely witty and had a very astute mind which saw through most situations, so that I think her behaviour was quite deliberately planned to tease the more conventionally-minded. She often had a streaming cold and would come to committee meetings flourishing a toilet roll or an old pair of camiknicks as hankerchiefs.' £50,000 would be $3.5 million today; she m 1929 David Simmons (1889-1960), a planter of Castle Daly, Jamaica, but dsp

Dorothea Hughes (1891-1952) - 'She was a veritable patron saint to the loving people in the Island [Jamaica] and they looked to her to solve all their troubles. Her memory will live long among them, and it is not too much to think that her name will become a legend.' (Rose T. Briggs)

6a Henry Salusbury Hughes (1836-1861), who died in Morocco while recuperating from the effects of a childhood shooting accident

'Long years ago I knew a young man at college; he was so far from being intellectually eminent that he had great difficulty in passing his examinations; he died from the effects of an accident within a very short time after leaving university, and hardly any one would now remember his name. He had not the smallest impression that there was anything remarkable about himself and he looked up to his teachers and more brilliant companions with a loyal admiration which would have made him wonder that they should ever take notice of him. And yet I often thought then, and I believe, in looking back, that I thought rightly, that he was of more real use to his contemporaries than any one of the persons to whose influence they would most naturally refer as having affected their development. The secret was a very simple one. Without any special intellectual capacity, he somehow represented with singular completeness a beautiful moral type. He possessed the "simple faith miscalled simplicity" and was so absolutely unselfish, so conspicuously pure in his whole life and conduct, so unsuspicious of evil in others, so sweet and loyal in his nature, that to know him was to have before one's eyes an embodiment of some of the most lovable and really admirable qualities that a human being can possess... [His companions] might affect to ridicule, but it was impossible that even ridicule should not be of the kindly sort; blended and tempered with something that was more like awe - profound respect, at least, for the beauty of soul that underlay the humble exterior.' - Sir Leslie Stephen (1832-1904) about Henry ('Harry') Hughes.

7a Arthur Octavius Hughes (1840-1867), Cornet 1st Dragoon Guards (Dec 1862 to Jan 1863) then 18th Hussars (from Jan 1863; Lt. from Apr 1864; Regt. to India Jun 1864), died of heatstroke in India (Secunderabad) on 8 May 1867

1a Jane Elizabeth ('Jeanie') Hughes (b 10 Dec 1828 at Uffington; d 24 March 1877 at 98 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, memorial St. Mary Abbots, Kensington), humanitarian (see her entry in DNB under 'Senior, Jane Elizabeth'), she trained as a vocalist under Garcia and was considered to be possibly the most gifted amateur singer of her day; on occasion she sang in private with Jenny Lind, the 'Swedish Nightingale', who was a friend; she was asked to test the acoustics of the newly-built Albert Hall; pioneer of social housing and of social housing finance with Octavia Hill (co-founder of the National Trust), another friend; one of the co-founders of the British Red Cross (she is listed as a member of the Ladies Committee in the Society's report of 1870-71), for whom she was a volunteer during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) and for which work she was awarded the Red Cross Medal; appointed in 1873 by Sir James Stansfeld, President of the Local Government Board, as Assistant Inspector of Workhouses (Inspector 1874), which made her the first female civil servant in Whitehall, and author, at his request, of an official (but controversial) report on the education and treatment of girls in pauper schools, which advocated the 'boarding out' of girls with foster families ('Report by Mrs. Senior on Pauper Schools', January 1874); founder of the Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants 1874; founding co-sponsor of the Girls' Friendly Society 1875; probable model for the character 'Dorothea' in her friend, George Eliot's, 'Middlemarch'; see also the portraits of her by George Frederick Watts, whose muse she was ('Mrs. Nassau Senior', 1859, The National Trust, Wightwick Manor, Wolverhampton), and Sir John Everett Millais ('The Rescue', 1855, National Gallery of Victoria, Australia); she was also photographed by Julia Margaret Cameron, who was another friend; through her father-in-law's (Nassau William Senior) association with people like Sir Henry Taylor and Sir Leslie Stephen (father of Vanessa Bell and Virginia Woolf) and her own friendships with Lord Tennyson (who fell in love with Charlotte Rosa Baring (see above), aunt of Jeanie's daughter-in-law, Mabel Barbara Hammersley), George Eliot, Annie Thackeray, Julia Margaret Cameron, George Watts, Ellen Terry, Adelaide Sartoris, Thoby and Sara Prinsep, Tom Taylor, the Strachey family (to which she was closely related through her sister-in-law, Minnie Senior), her own brother, Thomas Hughes and his friends and associates (such as Maurice and other Christian Socialists), she was part of that group which gave birth to the Bloomsbury Group (see Boyd, Elizabeth French, 'Bloomsbury Heritage - Their Mothers and the Aunts', Hamish Hamilton, London, 1976); after her early death a friend wrote: 'Surely a more beautiful life has scarcely ever been lived. Its very brevity seems almost in keeping. It was a concentration of sweetness and beauty which could, one would fancy, hardly have lasted longer than those 49 short years' and in 'Recollections of the Hughes family' Walter Money wrote: 'If any lady of the 19th century, in England or abroad, could have been allowed to put in a claim for the credit of not having lived in vain, that woman, we honestly believe, was Mrs. Nassau Senior.'; see her biography by Sybil Oldfield, 'Jeanie, an 'Army of One' - Mrs. Nassau Senior (1828-1877), the First Woman in Whitehall', Sussex Academic Press, 2008; she m 1848 at St. Mary's Church, Shaw-cum-Donnington, nr. Newbury, Nassau John Senior (1822-1891), barrister, of Hyde Park Gate, London, and had issue (see lineage of Senior above).

Jane Elizabeth ('Jeanie') Hughes (1828-1877) - humanitarian. 'You were arrayed almost single-handed, a noble army of one... Who will take your place? Who will redeem our generation?' Florence Nightingale - Letter to Jeanie Senior, 7 Dec 1874.

'I have lost a friend who could never be replaced even if I had a long life before me, one in whom I had unbounded confidence, never shaken in the course of friendship very rare during 26 years, Mrs. Nassau Senior, whom I dare say you remember talking about with me, who was called by a friend of yours "That Woman". I think when you read the biography of "That Woman", for it is one that will be written, [you will find] that very few canonized saints so well deserved glorification, for all that makes human nature admirable, lovable, & estimable, she had very few equals indeed, & I am certain no superior. It is not too much to say that children yet unborn will have cause to rue this comparative early death.' G F Watts, in a letter written shortly after Jeanie Senior's death in 1877 to his particularly sexist patron, Charles Rickards (1812-1886)

'She seems too high, too near, too great to grieve about...' Octavia Hill, co-founder of the National Trust, in a letter to Sydney Cockerell, 1877.

'Not for the bright face we shall see no more,
Not for the sweet voice we no more shall hear;
Not for the heart with kindness brimming o'er,
Large charity, and sympathy sincere.

These are not things that ask a public pen
To blazon its memorial o'er her name;
But, that in public work she wrought with men,
And faced their frowns, and over-lived their blame.

Yet never swerved a hair's breadth from the line
Of woman's softness, gentleness and grace;
But brought from these an influence to refine
Rough tasks and squalid, and there leave its trace.'

Extract from a poem 'In Memoriam' which was published in Punch in 1877.

‘Mrs. Nassau Senior’ - Jane Elizabeth ('Jeanie') Senior (1828-1877) painted by George Frederick Watts in 1857-8 when Jeanie was 30 (National Trust, Wightwick Manor, Wolverhampton). 'The Rescue' (1855) by John Everett Millais, National Gallery of Victoria. Jane Senior was the model for the mother; her son, Walter, aged 5 at the time, was the model for the little boy.

With regard to 'The Rescue' John Ruskin wrote: 'It is the only great picture exhibited this year; but this is very great. The immortal element is in it to the full. It is easily understood, and the public very generally understand it.' 'The Life and Letters of Sir John Everett Millais, President of the Royal Society’, John Guille Millais (his son), New York, 1899, p. 247-259, states: 'The following interesting note on “The Rescue” is taken from the Table Talk of Shirley, as quoted in Good Words of October, 1894: — "I knew Thomas Spencer Baynes intimately for nearly forty years. For ten years thereafter Baynes was my constant correspondent. From London he wrote to me as follows on May 25th, 1855: — 'I went in for half an hour to the Royal Academy yesterday, but as I was almost too tired to stand, and did not stay any time, I shall say nothing about it, only this, that the face and form of that woman on the stairs of the burning house [“The Rescue”] are, if not, as I am disposed to think, beyond all, quite equal to the best that Millais has ever done, not forgetting the look of unutterable love and life's deep yearning in “The Huguenot." And those children! Ah me! I can hardly bear to think of it; yet the agony is too near, too intense, too awful, for present rejoicing even at the deliverance. And that smile on the young mother's face has struggled up from such depths of speechless pain, and ex- presses such a sudden ecstasy of utter gratitude and over- mastering joy, that it quite unmans me to look at it. It is the most intense and pathetic utterance of poor human love I have ever met'“ and 'The latest note on the picture appeared in the Daily News of January 1st, 1898, in which it is said: — “'The Rescue' has a vigour and a courage that rivets attention. The immortal element (as Ruskin said at the time) is in it to the full. It was studied from the very life. Millais and a trusty friend of those early days hurried off one night to where a great fire was raging, plunged into the thick of the scene, and saw the effects which his memory could retain and his hand record. What a grappling it is with a difficulty which no other painter had so treated before. It is a situation which is dramatic; the rest is Nature. In the pose of the mother, as she reaches out those long arms of hers, straight and rigid and parallel, there is an intensity of expression that recalls his Pre- Raphaelite days. The figure of the child escaping towards her from the fireman's grasp shows what mastery of his art he had gained in the interval.” and 'Millais himself knew this to be his best work.'

The following is quoted from 'From the Porch' (p. 257 et seq) by Annie Thackeray, Lady Ritchie:

‘Mrs. Senior's name will always be associated with that of MABYS, of which she was indeed the founder, feeling as she did the want of some such help for girls coming out of workhouse schools and asylums, friendless and homeless, leaving the shelter and limitations in which they had been brought up for the world, where rules are not, nor safeguards, and the results were often disastrous, as they still are at times.

The old friends looked at each other with a common feeling of pleasure in that one woman's achievements, and in the charm of a personality still present after a quarter of a century. What follows is but a record of an evening's talk. We could almost believe now and again as we look at pictures which we have known always that mysterious things have happened to them since we saw them first - that new expressions have come into them. Was Turner's "Evening Star", for instance, as brightly scintillating as now when the painter first moved away from his canvas, or has the silver ocean, travelling out of space, come into the picture since it was first painted? It is not so with some lives we have loved and admired. The light seems to come into them.

Many of us may have this impression looking at Watts's fine portrait of Mrs. Nassau Senior, so familiar to the two interlocutors quoted above. It was once a beautiful picture and a most charming likeness, but now it seems something more. The painter had the spirit of divination, and it was as if he foresaw and remembered, too, while he stood painting at his easel. In this particular picture he has not only given us an actual portrait, but he has painted an abiding presence, the history of a life. The lady kneels to reach the flowers; her absorbed and careful looks are fixed upon the lilies which she is watering; one fair hand rests upon the marble table, the other with rosy-tipped fingers holds up the glass bowl brimming with water. Her violet dress - how well it always became her - hangs in straight folds from her waist; her beautiful flood of yellow hair flows in ripples. Everything in the painting is warm in tone; it is all simple, yet gorgeous; so is the ancient Indian shawl of orange and blue and scarlet, so is the big chair which is covered with Turkey twill; the green walls are only papered with ordinary hangings; but the various colours vibrate round the sweet head, which is bending with exquisite concern and intentness, and which is the soul of it all. A tray of hothouse flowers stands waiting on the floor. There are sprays of azalea and crown-imperials, and geraniums and maiden-hair ferns; but the lady has left them to water the growing lilies, and the feeling of peaceful ministry and the warmth of generous existence, all are somehow told in the picture, as it was in the life itself, which ended so long ago, which is so beneficent still.

Watts himself has written of this picture, of the intention he had when he created it, making her, as he says, "water a flowering root with so much solicitude"; and he goes on to dwell upon "the aspirations and affections which are sometimes with difficulty kept alive in the crush of artificial society. I love", he writes in a letter to her, "to think of you cultivating these rare roots. . . . No, not rare; by God's dear grace not rare; In many a lonely homestead blooming strong."

As I quote from Watts's letter I cannot help also remembering a saying of Ruskin, in which he, too, dwells on a woman's vocation. " A true lady," Ruskin says, "should be a princess, a washerwoman - yes, a washerwoman, to wash with water, to cleanse, to purify wherever she goes, to set disordered things in orderly array, ... This is a woman's mission."

Some of us may still remember Elm House*, where the Seniors lived at Wandsworth, and the long, low drawing-room, with its big bow-window opening to a garden full of gay parterres, where lawns ran to the distant boundary, while beyond again lay a far-away horizon. It was not the sea that one saw spreading before one's eyes, but the vast plateau of London, with its drifting vapours and its ripple of housetops flowing to meet the sky-line. The room itself was pleasant, sunny, and well-worn. There were old rugs spread on the stained floors (they were not as yet in fashion as they are now); many pictures were hanging on the walls; a varied gallery, good and indifferent; among the good were one or two of Watts's finest portraits, and I can also remember a Madonna's head with a heavy blue veil, and in juxtaposition a Pompeian sort of ballet girl, almost springing from the frame; and then, besides the pictures, there was a sense of music in the air, and of flowers, and of more flowers. The long piano was piled with music-books. Mrs. Nassau Senior, the mistress of the house, used to play her own chords and accompany herself as she poured out her full heart in strains beautiful and measured rather than profuse.

Garcia had been Mrs. Senior's singing master, and he would sometimes be present among the rest. I heard him speaking of her with affectionate admiration when he was a hundred years old, in his honourable age. How clear was her voice, how it rang and vibrated! For those who loved to listen to it, her "Vado ben spesso " rings on still. The true notes flowed; she did not seem to make any effort. She would cease singing to make some old friend welcome, and take to her music again as a matter of course. There was no solemnity in her performance, and yet I have heard Mrs. Sartoris say that it was because of the unremitting work of years, and because of Mrs. Senior's devotion to her art with absolute and conscientious determination, that she could use her voice as she did with tender and brilliant ease. It was a good sword indeed to defend the right. I heard a pretty story of a room full of Whitechapel boys and girls in revolt, and suddenly, when the clamour was at its height, she stood up quietly and began to sing, and the storm stopped and the room became silent and attentive. Sir Theodore Martin told me that he had only met Mrs. Senior once, one day when she was singing an Irish ballad to George Eliot at North Bank, "Far from the land where her young hero sleeps," which was written of Emmet. Sir Theodore said that forty years after he "could hear the notes still quite plainly." Some voices have this peculiar quality of vibrating on and on.

Stately and charming people used to assemble at Elm House. It is an old saying that people of a certain stamp attract each other. It was a really remarkable assemblage of accomplished and beautiful women who were in the habit of coming there, that home so bare, so simple, and yet so luxurious. It was like a foreign colony. The old roof held father, mother, son, the two widowed grandmothers - each in her own rooms, with her own attendant and the consequent vibrations. There was a younger brother also, with his flock of motherless children. The servants were like friends, not servants.

There is a letter with a date to it, February 1874, written by Mrs. Senior from a little cottage in the Isle of Wight which Mrs. Cameron had lately altered and devised, and which has belonged to the writer at intervals for years. That one winter Mrs. Senior went there to stay in it. Her son has let me see the letter, which begins with a motherly blessing, then continues:

"My dear, this is the Porch, the gate of Heaven. There is a sense of repose that I think one must feel just after death before beginning the new life. It is inconceivable how I enjoy it. I do nothing for hours together. The sitting-room opens into a tiny conservatory, and through the open window one hears the enchanted moan of the sea and the song of the birds. We are a long way from the sea, but I hear it; I wake at six and hear the earliest pipe of half-awakened birds, and I go to sleep with the sea in my ears and a lovely star looking in at my window.... We are to lunch at the Prinseps' to-morrow, as I want to see Watts. He is going to London to paint portraits. His house is perfectly charming. I am dying to build a house. It has rained all this morning, and we could not go to church; now it seems clearing, and the sun thinks of shining ... a constant thanks-giving and prayer goes up from my heart as I rest and am thankful."

What a grace is rest to those who work without ceasing!’

*Elm House, Lavender Hill, was demolished to make way for Battersea Town Hall, now the Battersea Arts Centre.


Arms

Arms (from Burke's 'General Armory' under 'Hughes of Donnington Priory'): Quarterly, 1st and 4th, sable a fess cotised between three lions' heads erased argent (HUGHES ex WOOD); 2nd, azure three arrows points downwards or, on a chief of the second three Moors' heads couped sidefaced sable (WATTS); 3rd, argent, a chevron ermines between three unicorns' heads capped sable (HEAD).
Crest: On a wreath of the colours, a lion's head proper, crowned or.
Motto: 'Y Gwir Yn Erbyn Y Byd' ('The truth against the world'), supposed to have been the war-cry of Boudica.

Author's note:

1st and 4th quarters: These arms are remarkably similar to the arms of Wood of Essex given in Burke's 'General Armory' as 'Argent, a fesse gules within two barrulets azure between three lions' heads erased sable', but have clearly been reversed. These arms seem to have been assumed by the children or later descendants of Mwyndeg Hughes (d 1712) and Elizabeth Wood, sister and co-heir of Thomas Wood of Hillingdon (see above). It was the practice in Wales to adopt the arms of heiresses. It is possible that the black and white colour scheme was derived from the arms commonly associated with the Hughes name in Wales (though the undifferenced arms apparently belong to Hughes of Gwerclas, claimants to the throne of Powys), namely 'Argent a lion rampant sable', being the arms of Owain Brogyntyn, son of Madog ap Maredudd (d 1160), Prince of Powys, ancestor of the Hughes of Pant Gwyn in the female line, as described above.

The arms of Wood of Essex per Burke's 'General Armory'. The arms of Hughes.

2nd quarter: This shows the arms of Watts of Cotlington (as per the Visitation of Somerset, 1623) or Watts of Hanslope Park, Bucks, (Burke's 'General Armory'). Presumably Mary Anne Watts (1770-1853), mother of John Hughes (1790-1857), was descended from one of these families.

The arms of Watts.

3rd quarter: This shows the arms of Head (see Burke's 'General Armory' under 'Head (co. Berks and London)'). As explained in Burke's 'Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland', 1847 (Vol. I, p. 612), Mrs. Watts, the maternal grandmother of Mary Anne Watts (1770-1853), was the heiress of Richard Head (of Newbury, Berks, it appears).

The arms of Head.

Hughes (ex Wood) quartered with Watts and Head.

The crest is not that either of Wood (none given in Burke's 'General Armory'), Watts (a greyhound) or Head (a unicorn's head) and was presumably assumed. It might be based on Hughes of Gwerclas which consists of a demi-lion issuing out of a crown or (again the Hughes lion theme).

On the basis of the male-line descent from Madoc Dhu (d before 22 Apr 1301), Lord of Copa'r Goleuni (Gop Hill, Trelawnyd), as described above, the Hughes family should use his arms, namely, paly of six, argent and sable, as illustrated, with suitable differences, quartered with the arms of Wood, Watts and Head as appropriate. But the arms of Madoc Dhu are so well-known and of such an obvious heraldic status that they should not, in the author's opinion, be quartered with any other arms, although in Wales it was the practice to quarter the arms of any famous house (particularly princely houses) from which an armiger could trace descent; this was often done even where there was no descent from an heraldic heiress of that house, which meant that there was, under English heraldic practice, no right to bear the arms (Hughes of Gwerclas is a good example of this). So, in Wales, quartering the arms of a Welsh prince meant 'I am descended from x prince', not 'I am descended from an heraldic heiress of x prince'.

Arms of Madoc Dhu

A suggestion for the arms of Hughes.


'Their name must ever be respectable. They exhibited virtues from which human esteem is as inseparable as the shadow from the substance - a severe adherence to principles, an uncompromising sincerity, individual disinterestedness and consistency.' Hallam, ‘The View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages’

'Man is known among men as his deeds attest,
Which make noble origin manifest.'
Arabian Knights

'They did not use their birth as a means to obtain privileges,
but saw therein an obligation to excel in knowledge and nobility,
so as to be worthy of their ancestors.'
Graetz, Heinrich; Lowy, Bella, 'History of the Jews', Vol. III, p. 236

‘A Knight ther was, and that a worthy man
That fro the tyme that he first bigan
To ryden out, he loved chivalrye,
Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisye.’
The Canterbury Tales

‘And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father's house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch. And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.’ Numbers 2:1-3

'East of the Sun and West of the Moon' - Cover illustration of the book of that name by Kay Nielsen.

'Still round the corner there may wait
A new road or a secret gate;
And though I oft have passed them by,
A day will come at last when I
Shall take the hidden paths that run
West of the Moon, East of the Sun.'

Back to 'The Descent of Hughes'

Annabel Milne