As an esoteric I must say I embrace those traditions of the past that seem so anachronistic in this day and age. Birthright fascinates me. The entire concept that one individual and one alone is in receipt of all the familial bounty on offer is extremely interesting.
More specifically the environment within which the eldest son receives all that he surveys is definitely a throwback to a more aristocratic world where the sun never set on Britain’s Empire, and any world map was peppered with ‘pink bits’ to give further assurance of the despotic sway of our English brethren. This entire mindset supported by the assurance of the solid permanency of a titled noble class of ancient lineage going back into the mists of time.
The delightful act of Primogeniture is still a hot topic today, what with gender equality and the subsequent rot and debate fostered in its wake.
Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings. Historically, the term implied male primogeniture, to the exclusion of females.
According to the Norman tradition, the first-born son inherited the entirety of a parent's wealth, estate, title or office and then would be responsible for any further passing of the inheritance to his siblings. In the absence of children, inheritance passed to the collateral relatives, in order of seniority of the males of collateral lines.
Primogeniture prevents the subdivision of estates and diminishes internal pressures to sell property, for example, if two children inherit a house and neither can afford to buy out the other's share. In Western Europe , most younger sons of the nobility had no prospect of inheriting property, and were obliged to seek careers in the Church, in military service, or in government.
Wills often included bequests to a monastic order who would take the disinherited son! Many of the Spanish Conquistadors were younger sons who had to make their fortune in war. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, many younger sons of English aristocrats specifically chose to leave England for Virginia England
The fact that the eldest son "scooped the pool" often led to ill-feeling amongst younger sons and daughters. Through marriage, estates inherited by primogeniture were combined and some nobles achieved wealth and power sufficient to pose a threat even to the crown itself. Finally, nobles tended to complain about and resist rules of primogeniture, though this opposition might indicate primogeniture among nobles was good for the king.
Although gender perference originated for other reasons, the modern science of genetics has made it possible to recognize that a strict gender preference in succession rules leads to heirs who share considerably more DNA with the distant ancestors who precede them in the line than would otherwise be the case. This was not known until modern times and did not influence the practice in antiquity, but has recently begun to do so.
Because the human Y chromosome changes relatively slowly over time and is only passed along the direct male line, it may be used to trace paternal lineage. The human Y chromosome is unable to recombine with the X chromosome, except for small pieces of pseudoautosomal regions at the telomeres, which comprise about 5% of the chromosome's length.
Both sons and daughters inherit 23 chromosomes of autosomal DNA, DNA in chromosomes that are neither X chromosomes nor Y chromosomes, from each parent. Daughters also inherit one X chromosome from each parent, but sons inherit a Y chromosome from their fathers and an X chromosome from their mothers. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited almost exclusively through the female line; all children inherit it only from their mothers.
Because Y chromosomes are smaller than X chromosomes, sons inherit a slightly smaller proportion of the genome from their fathers, 1/2 of the autosomal DNA, plus a Y chromosome than daughters do, 1/2 of the autosomal DNA, plus one X chromosome, which is in turn slightly smaller than the proportion that children of either gender inherit from their mothers, 1/2 of the autosomal DNA, plus one X chromosome, plus all mitochondrial DNA. Sons inherit slightly more than 1/2 of their nuclear DNA, all DNA except mitochrondrial DNA from their mothers and slightly less than 1/2 from their fathers; daughters inherit equal amounts from each parent. If mitochrondrial DNA is considered, then children of both genders inherit slightly more total DNA from their mothers than from their fathers. However, mitochrondria contain so much less DNA than chromosomes that the daughters can be assumed to inherit approximately 50% of their total DNA from each parent, even though this is technically true only of autosomal DNA.
Because children inherit equal amounts of autosomal DNA from each parent, the amount inherited from any particular distant ancestor is extremely tiny. Although 1/2 is inherited from each parent, only 1/4 is inherited from each grandparent, unless the parents are siblings, 1/8 from each third generation ancestor, great-grandparent, and so forth. By the tenth generation, the genetic contribution of each ancestor is less than 0.1%. After another ten generations, it is less than one part in one million. In successive generations, the genetic resemblance of any particular ancestor becomes no greater than that between any two individuals of the same ethnicity.
In a strictly agnatic line of succession, in which only a son, grandson, great-grandson, etc., or a brother, a half-brother who has the same father, a cousin who shares a paternal grandfather, etc., may inherit, every member of the line would theoretically have identical Y chromosomes, except for the pseudoautosomal region and any mutations that may have happened.
However, if any succession occurs through a female line in any generation, then none of the Y chromosome DNA continues through the line. For example, although there would be the same Y chromosome in the princes expected as of 2010, to be the next two Kings of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (HRH Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, son of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and HRH Prince William, son of HRH Princess of Wales, the former Lady Diana Spencer, that DNA would be inherited from the father of the current Prince of Wales, HRH Prince Charles, and not from the Queen or the prior Kings. Similarly, although HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco
Additionally, if the mother of any of the males in the line was actually impregnated by someone other than the previous member of the male line, then the Y chromosomes in her son and all subsequent members of the line would be that of the man who impregnated her, and not that of any of the previous members of the line. For example, if a man's wife or, in lines that are not restricted to legitimate children, his mistress was impregnated by a another man, or was already pregnant when she married him, then a resulting son could be the next in the line, but have no genetic relationship to his predecessor.
The entire concept of primogeniture, coupled with genetics is a heady mix to be sure. Rather interestingly it has been a topic that has been debated for many generations. So much so, that it was even questioned if it was prudent to perhaps bypass the eldest son for his younger brothers in an effort to couple families rich with estates, titles, and ducats to a stronger gene driven male sibling with a great opportunity to be born ‘more sound’ and better prepared for the world through nurturing.
Although it was not uncommon for the royal and noble families of Europe to bear ‘tainted fruited’ amongst its eldest son, there are a few examples from the Peerage of the United Kingdom that provide fascinating reading.
‘IS THE FIRST BORN, INFERIOR TO HIS BROTHERS?’
Sir Francis Galton Says It Is
And Upsets English Society
Especially Those Interested In The House Of Lords
The New York Times
April 17, 1910
The eldest born are, as a rule, inferior in natural gifts to the younger born.
Are they? The question as to the mental and physical abilities of the eldest son, thus discredited by Sir Francis Galton, found of the sciences of eugenics, has been stirring titled, lay and scientific circles in England quite considerably of late. Sir Francis, who has spilled the fat in the fire of English society, stated in a letter to The London Times that the House of Lords might be stronger and more efficient if primogeniture, the exclusive right of inheritance vested in the eldest son, were abolished.
‘Late researches,’ wrote Sir Francis, ‘have shown that the eldest son are, as a rule, inferior to the younger born in a small but significant way. The claims of heredity would be best satisfied if all the sons of peers were equally eligible to the peerage, and a selection made among them.’
Naturally this was dropping a bombshell into one of England’s most ancient fetishes. Naturally it excited comment. At present the discussion is merrily waging for and against the eldest born, who has suddenly found himself in the position of one who is suspected of having incipient tuberculosis, insanity, and other dreadful things.
It was Lord Rosebery who really started the discussion. In that memorable reform address of his before the House of Lords last month, he practically stated that the higher was degenerating, partly because, as he claimed, the eldest sons, who inherited the right to the peerage; were usually failures, and were not as competent as younger brothers to manage the affairs of the nation.
‘Hereditary tenure,’ said Lord Rosebery, ‘was no doubt very useful for feudal purposes, but I think that as a legislative engine, it is open to grave objection, and t hat it has outlived its usefulness. It is the part of our constitution which is most objectionable to the country. Suppose a House composed of Shakespeare, Bacon, Newton and Burke. Its critics would at once say that these are men of high and exalted genius, but how are we to insure that their successors will inherit their genius with their names?’
And from these remarks, merely intended by Lord Rosebery to emphasize the necessity for reform of the House of Lords, arose the question of the capabilities of the later-born. Also Lord Rosebery’s remarks stirred speculation as to how often the genius of the father is transferred to the son, and in how many cases, if any, to the eldest son.
Sir Francis Galton’s later statement of his own belief from a study of eugenics and hereditary genius, upon which he is considered an expert, was at once supported by other men eminent in the study of primogeniture. Dr. David Heron of the Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics endorsed the view that the eldest son is usually inferior to the later-born. Karl Pearson of the Eugenics Laboratory of the University College, London, went further and expressed some interesting views of his own on the subject.
‘I think there is no doubt,’ said Prof. Pearson, ‘that the first two children of a family are slightly more liable to certain defects than the later-born members.
Of a hundred first-born, a hundred second-born, a hundred third-born, and so on individuals – independent of sex – the first two sets will have rather more, that third and other sets rather less, than the average percentages of tuberculosis, insanity, albinism and criminality.
‘The differences are very small, but they certainly exist, and I have tried the problem in many ways, to avoid the pitfalls so prevalent in statistics. For aught I can say the eldest-born may have more ability. I have not seen an adequate investigation of this point. On the other hand, the elder-born appear to have a slightly longer length of life.’
‘It is conceivable that the material novitiate may be the source of certain nervous troubles in the eldest-son; or, when we come to deal with the population as a whole, the eldest-son may more frequently be born when the parents are too young. I give no dogmatic explanation, but, for the characters mentioned, I think the fact is real.’
‘The inheritance of ability is so marked, however,’ said Prof. Pearson, ‘that there is every reason to suppose that a man who has won his way by pure ability will, if wisely mated, be the father of children above the average.’
In the matter of the House of Lords, which is supposed to be degenerating on account of the rigid rule of inheritance by the eldest son; Prof. Pearson merely said that it was not so much the hereditary principle – that ability breeds ability – but the inflexibility of the rule which pays no attention to the application or non-application of the principle in the individual case.
‘But, returning to the main question,’ said the Professor of Eugenics, ‘we find the neurotic, the insane, the tubercular, and the albinotic the more frequent among the elder-born. Dr. Goring’s results for criminality show the same law.’
‘The result of this law is rather remarkable. It means that if you reduce the size of the family you will tend to decrease the relative proportion of the mentally and physically sound in the community. You will not upset this conclusion in the least, if, as I suspect, the extraordinary able man, the genius, is among the eldest born.’
This last remark stirs the question to further issue. It may be that Prof. Pearson himself does not class the ‘extraordinarily able man, the genius’ among the normal class. This, however, is a question which has been argued and never settled, as to the affinity of genius and insanity.
It is interesting, however, to make an offhand list of great men – normally great and abnormal geniuses – and look into the matter of their birth, or order of birth. The Sunday Times struck off a list of about a dozen famous names with no regard to precedence or immediate memory of the circumstances of birth. An investigation of the birth circumstances of persons named showed that nearly all came from the middle rung of the family ladder.
George Washington, for instance – and he may be taken as a type of the very normal great man – from the idiosyncrasies usually attributed to genius – was the fifth child by his father, Augustine Washington, although he was the first-born son of Augustine Washington’s second wife, Mary Ball.
Poe, on the other hand, a type of the erratic genius, was the second son of his Thespian parents. In his case, however, prenatal influences suggest that it would be unfair to the argument to draw any conclusions such as Prof. Pearson suggested with regard to the first and second born.
But the list of those who were far from the beginning of the family makes the theory of those who have studied eugenics, and decided against the eldest son rather convincing.
Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was the seventeenth child of his father and the tenth of his mother, his father’s second wife. The elder Pitt, Earl of Chatham, was a younger son. Thomas Jefferson was a third child. Abraham Lincoln was a second child, though an eldest son. The fact that Lincoln’s father was the youngest son of a family of men is worth considering, however.
Goethe was one of the random listed and about him there could be no manner of doubt. Goethe was an eldest and only son. He was also an only child.
Another genius who was an only son – therefore the eldest – was Alexander Hamilton. But he was not an only child. His mother had previously borne a daughter by the much hated Swede husband whom she left for Hamilton’s father. His genius, however, might be attributed to prenatal influences, and is often so attributed by those who know and appreciate the history of the beautiful character who gave birth to the brilliant West Indian.
It was Sir Henry Blake who raised the side issue of where the eldest son stood when he was the youngest child, the previous arrivals in the family having been all girls! A New York physician, discussing the subject the other day, put aside Sir Henry’s side-issue as trivial and puerile.
‘It doesn’t matter how many girls there are in a family, the first son is a very different proposition to the mother. There is an emotional and sentimental idea about that first son which is worth considering, if paternal influences are to be considered at all.’
In that case William Shakespeare might be considered an example of an eldest son about whose mental abilities – so abnormally normal – there can be no manner of doubt. But he was not a first child. It is held that he was the third child of John and Mary Shakespeare of Stratford.
Napoleon may have been an eldest son, but the point does not seem to be settled. It is a matter of doubt as to whether Joseph Bonaparte was not born before his brother, or, rather, there is doubt thrown upon the common acceptance of Joseph as an elder brother of Napoleon. Some historians believe that Napoleon, christened Nabulione, was born before Joseph. However, Napoleon was at least second, and within the first and second classes which Prof. Pearson claims are likely to be less normal than the children born thereafter. The question remains, also, as to how much of Napoleon’s ability was normal.
Against that doubt is the case of Lord Nelson, the hero of Trafalgar, as normal, courageous and clear headed a man as ever lived. He was the younger son of an English clergyman, the Rev. Edmund Nelson.
Thus, in an off-hand list of twelve famous persons, it would seem that but one was indubitably an eldest son. Readers of The Sunday Times might interest themselves indefinitely looking up the circumstances of birth around scores of famous men, and they would no doubt come to the conclusion that, whatever the reason, eldest sons do not figure largely in the world’s Hall of Fame.
This fact, elucidated by disciples and exponents of eugenics in Europe, has been something in the nature of a shock to society, which has ever pinned its faith on the eldest son, although the habits of this same eldest son have ever been a theme of the cheap novelists.
‘Popular opinion,’ said Dr. David Heron of the Eugenics Laboratory ‘is always wrong in these matters. The first-born is always more likely to be insane, tubercular, or criminally inclined than the others. Therefore the tendency to diminish the size of the family only increases the average number of such individuals (eldest sons) in the community.’
From which it should be inferred that race suicide is not the solution of the problem of the eldest son. Ireland’s contribution to the discussion would probably be that the solution lay in not having an eldest son! Scotland long ago decided the question with a quotation from Robert Burns, who held that Adam, humanity’s ‘eldest son,’ was really a very inferior creature compared with the second child of earth – Eve:
‘His ‘prentice han’ He tried on man, An’ then He made a lassio – O!’
Several New York physicians among them specialists in children were interviewed in the matter of the eldest son and his alleged shortcomings. Not one of the physicians would agree to have his name quoted. As one humorously remarked:
‘You must bear in mind that in most of the families we attend there is an eldest son. You would not have us libel our patients, would you?’
‘I have followed the course of this discussion,’ said an eminent practitioner, ‘and have read nothing that has in any way changed previously formed opinions on the subject of the eldest born.’
‘While there is no reason in the world why an eldest born should be in any way inferior to children born later, it seems to be a fact that many eldest children are not as well equipped in later years.’
‘The reason for this I would attribute not so much to any prenatal influences – in which I am no great believer – but rather to the disadvantages of having been the first child born to the parents.’
‘In the upbringing of children a mother and father are novices at one time, even if some mothers and fathers are not novices all the time.’
‘Take the case of the first child, whether it be an eldest son or an eldest daughter and it is bound to be one of them – the mother is inexperienced and full of theories which are generally all wrong. Result? The child suffers. A further result to the advantage of the children born thereafter, is that they get the benefit of the experience a mother learned from mistakes made in the upbringing of the first child.’
‘But supposing the eldest son is born as the fifth and sixth member of the family, all his predecessors having been girls?’ was asked. ‘It is stated that the eldest son is usually defective.’
‘This may be fact, and a similar argument might be applied. About a first son, no matter how many girls may have preceded him in the family, there is a sentiment. The eldest son is always looked for. He is usually spoiled because he is the first son.’
‘Besides that, the best upbringing a boy can get is one with cuffs and kicks in it, figuratively speaking, and one that has boy associations.’
‘You must realize that the first son – the eldest son – is usually a lonely little fellow. He has no brothers of his age to play with. If he is also a first child he is particularly lonely, and if he is an only child of his parents he is usually treated as if he were made of glass. The result often is that he grows up effeminate or over-sensitive, and unable to stand on a level with the rest of the masculine world when he comes in contact with it.’
‘Where he is the younger child or the eldest son in a family of girls, he is likely to grow up even more effeminate in his viewpoint and manner.’
‘Now what about the younger brothers – the younger sons? Their parents having benefited by their mistakes with the eldest son, the after comers get a different training. All the mistakes of novitiate motherhood are past, and common sense has taken the place of theory and emotional sentiment.’
‘I think it very likely that the younger brother is liable to be the best-trained, best-equipped person to uphold the family tradition and wealth. It has nothing to with birth, only with upbringing.’
Another physician, a well-known obstetrician, had a very different view of the matter.
‘Prenatal physical influence has sometimes much to do with the matter,’ he said. ‘You must remember that first maternity is a much more serious matter than are later events of the kind – to the mother. Also there is a great deal of marvel, emotionalism, and physical innovation in connection with the birth of a first child. Should it be a son, it stands to reason that the son will be affected in some degree, more or less.’
‘I do not believe, however, that there is any significant difference between the first child and later children, save as in case where the child inherits certain qualities from the mother or the father, or from some near ancestor. Heredity is a valuable thing, but it is not more pronounced in its gifts to, or afflictions upon, the first or the last born.’
‘it is an interesting fact, however, that few great men – or what are popularly called great men – appear to have been first-born sons. It is a matter upon which you can only build theories.’
When one has built these theories, however, and turns to the consideration of greatness in connection with the order of birth, it is to not with some respect for such theories that the more abnormal forms of greatness, or genius, seem to occur among first and second sons – such as Goethe, Poe, Napoleon and Hamilton – while the more normal forms of high ability occur lower down in the family, as in the cases of Washington, Franklin and Nelson.
Lord Talbot, Who It Was Once Rumored
Would Marry Miss McTavish, Is Now The Heir
July 9, 1902
Philip Joseph Mary Fitzalan-Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surry, was the only son and the only child of the fifteenth Duke of Norfolk, the premier duke and earl and hereditary Earl Marshall of England. The Duke of Norfolk, in this last named capacity, it will be recalled, had control over the arrangements for the coronation of King Edward VII at Westminster Abbey. He is the head of a feudal Anglo-Saxon house which dates back for its foundation to about the middle of the tenth century. His ancestor, Sir William Howard (Hereward), became chief justice of the Common Pleas in 1297. That latter’s grandson became admiral of the north under Edward III; his great-grandson married a daughter of Thomas, Duke of Norfolk; his son, a Yorkist, who was created Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal, led the van of Richard III’s army at Bosworth, where he fell in 1485; his son won Flodden Field from James IV of Scotland, in 1513: his eldest son was executed by Henry VIII, just before the latter’s death in 1547; the fourth Duke was beheaded in 1572 for holding communication with Mary, Queen of Scots, and his son died a prisoner in the Tower in 1595. The great-grandson of the last-named was restored as fifth Duke in 1664, since which date the titles of the family have descended uninterruptedly. The Dukedom of Norfolk and Earldom of Surrey were not created until 1483, but the Earldom of Arundel dates back to 1139.
The Duke of Norfolk, who is now in his fifty-fifth year, was married in 1877 to Lady Floras Hastings, daughter of the Countess of Loudoun and niece of the unfortunate Marquis of Hastings who died bankrupt and broken hearted in 1868, the last of his race. The sole issue of this marriage was the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, who was born at Norfolk House, London Lourdes and other shrines, but without avail and it had long been realized that the heir to the premier dukedom of England
The heir to the dukedom is now Lord Edmund Bernard Talbot, the only brother of the Duke, who assumed the name of Talbot in 1876, and is married to a daughter of the Earl of Abingdon. Lord Edmund Talbot has two children, the younger, a son, now in his nineteenth year. The Duchess of Norfolk died in April 1887. Since the Duke became a widower it has frequently been reported that he was on the point of marrying. As long ago as September 1888, a false report was started that he was to marry Miss Virginia McTavish, a member of the wealthy Catholic family of Baltimore
Tragedy Of Britain’s Peerage
The Imbecile Heir To England’s
Premier Dukedom Dies After
Years Of Suffering
The Evening Telegram
July 22, 1902
The cable last week announced the death of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, only son of the Duke of Norfolk, at Arundel Castle , Sussex
To the majority of this announcement was, perhaps no more than an ordinary obituary notice. Yet to those who knew it was the sequel to a human tragedy.
Blessed with all the highest dignities of the British peerage that had descended to him from his ancestors, and possessed of almost boundless wealth to sustain them, the Duke of Norfolk has been denied the boon of a son to inherit them. The Earl of Arundel and Surrey was an idiot and a crippled from his birth, September 6, 1879. He was on one occasion taken on a pilgrimage to Lourdes , France Great Britain
The Earl of Arundel was an only child. The Duke of Norfolk, who himself became his own master at the age of 12, was naturally of a serious, reflective turn of mind. The Howards are traditionally a Catholic family. The Duke of Norfolk was brought up with a strictly religious education, one of his tutors being Dr. Newman. When he married, in 1877, Lady Flora Hastings, who was herself, a convert to the Roman Catholic faith, the ceremony at the Crompton Oratory, performed by Mgr. Capel, was in many respects the most important social event of the season. The Duke took his bride home to Arundel Castle , in Sussex , a feudal residence second only to Windsor Lourdes Norfolk ; he would have enjoyed the baronies of FitzAlan, Clun, Oswaldeshire and Maltravers, and his turn might have become Earl Marshal of England
To the grief of his parents, this heir of grand dignities could never have duly exercised them. He was blind, deal, dumb and weak of intellect, and medical science, though all its resources were brought into request, could give but the slightest alleviation. Fresh pilgrimages to famous shrines in Europe were under-taken and as the young Earl grew up and was seen to make some progress in physical strength and the use of his faculties, this improvement was ascribed by the Duke to the visits which he undertook with the afflicted boy to Lourdes
Earl Of Arundel’s Funeral
The Philadelphia Record
August 3, 1902
. . . . .The funeral of the Earl of Arundel was very sad. The service used was that for little children who die in innocency. Poor boy, although he lived for 23 years, he never grew larger than a child of 10, was dressed in sailor suits and, besides being quite helpless and blind, was also without mental development. His father always spoke of him as ‘my little son,’ and was, oddly enough, passionately fond of him, not only the usual paternal love for the afflicted child, but a great personal affection.
OF NOBLE BIRTH
BUT MADMEN
Tales Not Told In
Peerages Of Great Britain
Star
September 6, 1902
The death of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, only son of the Duke of Norfolk, senior Duke of England, may perhaps be a relief to the hard and fast upholders of the divine right of primogeniture; for the unfortunate Earl had been an idiot from his birth, and since an attack of scarlet fever, when a child, had been blind also.
Recent laws would have prevented his sitting in Parliament to help make laws for the British nation; but in the old days, only his own inclination cold have kept him out of the House of Lords, and his vote as a peer would have been as valuable as that of any peer possessed of all his faculties.
One Earl of Surrey was a poet and composed verse that is read approvingly even to this day; another was a general at sea and on shore in the time of Elizabeth
Peerage history is very tender to titled persons. ‘Burke’s Peerage’ – the Briton’s Bible, some persons have been known to call it – in its account of the ancestors of the present Marquis of Queensberry, says that the second Duke of Queensberry ‘dying in 1711 was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Charles, 3rd Duke,’ but says nothing of the elder son, whose death made way for him.
This elder son was James, Earl of Drumlanrig, an idiot from his birth; but unlike the poor Earl of Arundel and Surrey , an idiot who retained all his bodily powers. He was born about 1686, and for years was kept in a retired part of Queensberry House, Edinburgh.
Behind Barred Windows And Bolted Doors
He grew up to be nearly seven feet in height, and attained tremendous strength; he possessed an enormous appetite, and had to be fed continually. Meat was his main food, and the smell of cooking would throw him into paroxysm of rage, which could be stilled only by prompt supplies of food.
On May 1, 1707, the union of Scotland and England took place; and on that day all Edinburgh
That day the Earl of Drumlanrig broke out of his apartments. He found a door or a window fastened less securely than usual, and did not have to exert all his strength to break down the bars that restrained him.
He wandered through the deserted house, demolishing furniture and pictures from time to time, until finally he smelt meat cooking. In a paroxysm of fury, he found his way to the kitchen, where a cook and a little boy were at work, the only persons in the house, apparently.
The cook fled. The Earl fell on the boy before he could escape, and killed him with the spit he held. Then he began to cook him! He was on the point of eating him when the cook returned with assistance.
Thereafter the Earl passed out of human knowledge. It is said that he was killed then and there, before the kitchen boy’s body could be taken from him.
That there was something of this sort in the history of the Queensberry dukedom is proved by the fact that the second Duke, father of this crazy Earl, surrendered all his titles to the Crown in 1706, and was created immediately a peer with the same ranks and titles, but with remainder, not to his eldest son, but to his second son; and when the Duke died, in 1711, it was the second son who succeeded.
For upward of half a century there was said to be a secret haunted room in Glamis Castle
Learned The Secret On His Twenty-First Birthday
According to the story published in ‘Blackwood’ about this year 1877 – the present heir to the title became of age in 1876 – the house was filled with guests to celebrate the coming-of-age of Lord Glamis. On his birthday he was taken aside by his father and the factor, was absent some time, and returned pale and evidently much agitated; he had seen the Glamis ghost, of course.
The late Laurence Oliphant told some boys once – it is one of them who writes this – that he was staying at Glamis Castle
To effect their purpose they decided to go from room to room and hang a towl from each window. When they had done this they were to inspect the house from the outside, and any window without its towel would of course open into the haunted room.
Lord Strathmore returned while the ladies were still engaged in this occupation, and at once put a shop to it, getting very angry and rebuking Lady Strathmore with considerable warmth, even before his guests.
On another occasion the claret gave out at a late supper and Lord Strathmore refused to let the butler go into the cellar for it, but went himself. He was gone from the table for a long time; finally, he was found at the head of the main entrance to the cellar, badly bruised; quite exhausted, but with the claret and the key of the locked cellar door fast in his hand.
At last the story of the haunted room came out; that is, it is said to have come out. To tell it requires a short history of the family which
Now Bears One Of Macbeth’s Titles
Thomas Bowes-Lyon, born in 1773, became the eleventh Earl of Strathmore and died in 1846. He left no children, but he had had a son, George by name, known generally as Lord Glamis. This Lord Glamis, according to the peerages, was born in 1801 and died in 1834, leaving two sons, both of whom have been Earls of Strathmore and Kinghorne.
So much for the genealogy of the family as recorded in Burke’s and other peerages in which each person recorded has the right to pedigree and assume any titles he may choose.
The Castle of Glamis is up in Forfarshire , Scotland , not very far from Dundee; but it was not in any Dundee paper that a death notice appeared one morning in 1885, which was to this effect:
‘Died – At Glamis Castle
‘Thomas, Lord Glamis!’ The peerages said nothing of such a person. George, Lord Glamis, father of the present Earl and of his elder brother, was the only Lord Glamis who could have been more than eighty; and he had died in 1834 when note quite thirty-three years old. Who then was ‘Thomas, Lord Glamis,’ who died aged eighty-four?
According to the story, he was the elder twin brother of George, Lord Glamis, idiot from birth, who was set aside and maintained privately in Glamis Castle
The reason why the Earl would not let the butler go for the claret was that a maniac Lord Glamis had escaped form his keeper and was known to be hiding in the cellar; and the Earl’s condition when he brought the claret to his guests was due to the fact that he had barely escaped from his crazy relative who was possessed of enormous strength and obeyed only a keeper or attendant.
The son of the present Lord Glamis, grandson of the present Earl of Strathmore is eighteen years old now, so the great subject cannot be told to him for three years yet. If the story told above and the death notice are correct, there will be no secret to impart, and the Glamis ghost will have been settled.
THE MONSTER OF GLAMIS
The Monster of Glamis (allegedly born October 21, 1821), sometimes referred to as the Horror of Glamis, was allegedly a deformed member of the Bowes-Lyon family, kept in seclusion in Glamis Castle, Scotland.
It is difficult to determine whether the 'Monster' is factual or not. Much of the available information comes from James Wentworth Day's The Queen Mother's Family Story, published in 1967.
The alleged "monster" of Glamis was Thomas Bowes-Lyon, rightful Lord Glamis, first child of George Bowes-Lyon and Charlotte Grimstead, later the Dowager Lady Glamis. They were the great-great-grandparents of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, who became Queen Consort in 1936. Thomas was recorded in Robert Douglas's Peerage of Scotland as "born and died, October 21, 1821".
The legend of his survival appears to have started in local villages as the result of an account by the midwife (whose name was not recorded). The deformed child was alleged to have been in rude health when the midwife left, causing suspicion when his death was announced a day or two later. The child Thomas has no gravestone, a matter which tends to support the initial rumours. (Thomas had been baptised as a Christian on birth.)
He was said to have been nursed through infancy in secret and later confined in one of Glamis Castle's many (and several are known) secret rooms. This part of the story of Thomas did not become current until the 1960s, when family accounts were first published.
[edit]Life
His chamber, which is recounted as measuring 10 ft by 15 ft, was entered from the chapel. There is no known account of how the room was accessible, but presumably it would have been through a removable panel or some such as there is no visible entrance from the chapel. In 1969, the Queen Mother's biographer Michael Thornton visited Glamis and was told by the sixteenth Earl that the entrance had been bricked up after Thomas's death.
The details of Thomas's appearance -- "His chest an enormous barrel, hairy as a doormat, his head ran straight into his shoulders and his arms and legs were toylike" -- come from James Wentworth Day's The Queen Mother's Family Story. They are attributed to "a member of the Queen Mother's family". Wentworth-Day's account is the first in which the information was gathered direct from members of the Queen mother's family, even though they were understandably reluctant to be named. It is suspected that on several occasions, the Queen Mother herself was the source. In Peter Underwood's A-Z of British Ghosts he is described as "an enormous flabby egg". There is said to be a monarchical painting in Glamis, where, in the background, an armoured figure with disproportionately large arms and legs can be seen. This figure, supposedly, is the "Monster".
Thomas was fed daily through an iron grille in his cell door by one trusted servant. It is not believed that Thomas ever left this cell, but some associated rumours claim that he was occasionally exercised by being taken for a walk, like a dog, on the battlements on moonless nights. The castle has a section named Mad Earl's Walk to this day.
Wentworth-Day describes a tale whereby a workman carrying out renovation at Glamis in the early 1900s found the secret passage, and explored it, and became "alarmed" at what he found there. The Earl and his lawyer were summoned from London Australia
Also from Wentworth-Day comes the story of the Queen Mother's mother, the Countess of Strathmore, trying to get the Glamis factor Andrew Ralston, whom the Earl had confided in, to tell her the truth about the family secret. He told her "it is fortunate you do not know the truth for, if you did, you would never spend another night beneath this roof". Only the Earl and his heir are ever fully in the know, told the secret - as they should know they were not the rightful inheritor of the title - on his 21st birthday. Once the "monster" had died, the heir was given a choice as to whether he wanted to know or not, there no longer being a reason why he must be told and to save him distress.
It is claimed that the workman event happened in the 1870s. This would indicate that Thomas was in his fifties at the time. The circumstances and date of his death are unknown. Thomas's mother, Charlotte Grimstead, died in 1881. In another event, guests at the castle, upon hearing rumours of the monster, decided to hang a piece of rag from every window in the castle that they could access. Upon surveying their work from the outside, they found a number of windows ragless, and therefore termed them secret rooms. Unfortunately, the Earl returned and, discovering their experiment, threw them out.
Sordid Romance Of The Exchange Of A Title For Gold
By William Christie
The Sunday Chronicle
May 6, 1906
One of the most highly sensational domestic dramas of the still young twentieth century has recently come to the front in England. It features are so startling and so spiced with the element of novelty that interest in the matter has become international. It has to do with the marital infelicities of the noble British house of Townshend, and were it not for the corroborative official records and the unimpeachable evidence of ‘Burke’s Peerage’ one might believe that the romance maker was abroad.
It is alleged that a marquis of ancient lineage and even royal connections has been made a prisoner in his own house, all of his friends and relatives denied access and that he is the victim of sham lunacy proceedings brought by his captors. His mother, the Dowager Marchioness, has made affidavit that she has been refused admittance to the premises. She declares that her son is perfectly sane and that an effort is being made to immure him in a madhouse.
All this is highly interesting, but it is by no means the climax. That is reached only when it is disclosed that the central figure in the plot is the unfortunate man’s wife, a bride of a few months, the beautiful and notably clever. This young woman who has captured her husband in the full significance of the term was before her marriage, Miss Gladys Ethel Sutherst, daughter of a prosperous London lawyer and financier. The Suthersts are respectable people, but they have never before figured in society, and admit freely that the Marquis was attractive to them only on account of his family name.
Aside from his title and family connections the Marquis was not much of a matrimonial prize. He was the nominal owner of about 20,000 acres, but when he entered into possession of his estates about five years ago he found them mortgaged so heavily that his title to them amounted practically to nothing. If he had not come into possession of a lot of valuable family heirlooms he would have had to go to work to earn a living. This would have been extremely inconvenient, for the Marquis is diminutive in size, with a shrunken body on which is placed a very large head, with an abnormal frontal development and a peculiar flatness at the back. He actually stands only about four feet six inches in height and has the frame of a badly nourished boy of twelve. He walks with short, rapid steps and speaks in a shrill ad high pitched voice. His face is pale, his eyes lusterless, his mouth tremulous, with a heavy hanging underlip.
Soon after his accession to the title, the Marquis seems to have fallen into the hands of some mysterious person or persons who concocted a scheme to exploit his title in the matrimonial market. The Marquis had already been the recipient of matrimonial overtures from several sources. One woman, a reputed widow of great personal charm and alleged fabulous wealth, nearly succeeded in carrying him off, but the Dowager Marchioness had been conducting a still hunt, and the widow was unmasked before she could accomplish her purpose. Shortly afterward the little nobleman was put frankly and squarely on the market by his secret promoter, whose identity has not yet been made public. A regular prospectus was issued, and copies of it were sent to several American cities and to those who were the reputed influential advisers of American heiresses.
The secret agent, whoever he may turn out to be, found the Marquis a difficult proposition. Try as he might, it was almost impossible to negotiate him. There were plenty of American heiresses in the market, and the Townshend title was a good one as such things go, but the Marquis himself was the stumbling block. He came to America at the instigation of his promoter, but it would have been better if he had remained in England. One look at him was sufficient to disenchant the most persistent title hunting heiress in the United States. The little nobleman went back to his ancestral estates without having made even a ripple in American fashionable society.
But the Sutherests, it seems, were not so fastidious. The lawyer had a beautiful daughter who had reached a marriageable age, and he had made up his mind that she should be the means of putting the Sutherests on a first class social plane. The daughter entered into his plan with infinite zest and shared his ambitions to it loftiest aspiration. She saw the little Marquis and declared that she loved him at the very first glimpse. Without a great deal of preliminary ceremony they were married by special license at the ancient sanctuary of St. Martins-in-the-Fields, in the presence of the lady’s father and two friends.
From that moment the beautiful new Marchioness and her family took full possession of the captured lord. The Sutherests accompanied the young couple on their honeymoon, which was passed on the continent. According to letters written by the bride to her London friends, the early days of this romantic period were ideal. The fair Gladys seemed to be delighted with her bargain, ‘and, as for dear Townshend,’ she wrote, ‘he is in the very seventh heaven of delight.’
Within three months everything had changed. It became known to the friends of the Marquis that he had married this charming young woman in consideration of a loan of $135,000 to be raised by her financing father. The loan was still hanging fire. There was trouble about raising it, and there was more trouble about the commission of the mysterious promoter who had played his role of matchmaker. This powerful and secret influence, whatever it may turn out to be, began to make no end of trouble. When the Townshends returned to England the young husband left his bride suddenly and without explanation and went to live with this potent Dan Cupid whose claim was still unsatisfied.
He remained away from his London home for a period of ten weeks; then he reappeared, and the Sutherests saw to it that he remained. He became a prisoner. Two physicians called in by the father of the young Marchioness pronounced him insane, and the lunacy commission put him in charge of his wife until the matter should be determined. The Dowager Marchioness and her friends have made the Empire resound with their lamentations. It is charged that the Sutherests have conspired to immure the Marquis in a madhouse; that the pretext of his insanity is a deep laid scheme. The whole matter will have to be sifted by the courts, and the whole story as it stands at the present time is the most perplexing and sordid that the exchange of titles for gold has yet inspired.
NR
© 2011 The Esoteric Curiosa. All Rights Reserved
