Talk:Lord Great Chamberlain

General discussion

Perhaps a list of those who have actually acted as Lord Great Chamberlain is in order, in addition to and separate from the list of those who have held the hereditary right to the office? john 07:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Emsworth has this:

• Marjorie Wynn-Carrington B. Nunburnholme (d. 1968) - Charles John Wilson 3rd B. Nun. (d. 1974) - Ben Charles Wilson 4th B. Nun. (d. 1998) - Charles Wilson 5th B. Nun. (d. 2000) - Four Daughters (?)

Nothing to add on this. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• L. Alexandra Palmer - (?)

No information here, either. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

She died in 1955. john 23:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Ruperta Legge C. Dartmouth - L. Mary Cecilia Legge; L. Elizabeth Legge; L. Diana Legge; L. Barbara Legge; L. Josceline Gabrielle Legge (d. 1995) - ... Arthur Patrick Chichester E. Belfast

The Countess died in 1963. Lady Diana Legge died in 1970. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Judith Keppel C. Albemarle (d. 1928) - Rufus Arnold Alexis Keppel, 10th E. Alb.

As I noted on the page, the Countess of Albemarle predeceased her father. Her eldest son, Viscount Bury, held this twentieth of the Great Chamberlainship from 1928 to 1968. The 10th Earl of Albemarle succeeded his father in the Great Chamberlainship in 1968, and his grandfather as Earl in 1979. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Lady Victoria Weld-Forester - (?)

She died in 1966. Her son by her first husband, Sir Edward Legge-Bourke, succeeded to her share, and died in 1973. His son William Legge-Bourke was born in 1939, and is presumably still alive. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As to the Baroness Willoughby de Eresby, and her quarter of the Great Chamberlainship, does she have any children, or will her share descend to her cousin, Sir George Aird, 4th Bt, and his heirs? john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lady Willoughby de Eresby is childless at 69; there being issue of both her aunts, her fourth will divide into eighths, the junior likely passing to Sir George John Aird and his line and the senior to her other cousin, Carola Eloise Philippi, and then to her son by her first marriage, Capt. Sebastian St. Maur Miller.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

(My source, just to note, is [1]. john 22:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Who was the other sister of the 3rd Earl of Ancaster? I have only found the mother of the 4th Baronet Aird, Lady Priscilla who dies in 2002.
VM 07:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC) edited: --VM (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

L.E. and john, I still can only find Lady Priscilla; please give evidence to what you call the senior part.

Will Lorraine Wilson really be Lord Great Chamberlain under the next monarch, although she's female and a commoner (Is it right to suppose that she will get a title when taking the office or could she even sit in the house of lords without? What sort of title could it be?)- The article should have a remark about these questions, because it could become relevant in the not so far future.. (Xerxes M.F)

There were similar cases in the past, where a female was the holder of that part that executes the office, but her husband or eldest son was Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain. And I think if that male person holds no peerage title a title will be granted similar to the barony of Gwydir, so either a life barony or a hereditary barony; but I think it will be rather a life peerage than an hereditary title.
VM 08:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

VM - is it impossible for a woman to exercise the office? Isn't it more likely at this point that Ms. Wilson will herself be granted a title and exercise the office herself? Previously, women couldn't sit in the house of lords, but now they can. john k 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, as it is now regularly possible for women to be granted a life peerage and sit in the House of Lords themselves, any female holder of the respective part of the office of Lord Great Chamberlain will be granted a life peerage and execute the office herself, as will her heirs during the same reign. --VM (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Lord Great Chamberlain is, like the Earl Marshal, ex officio a sitting member of the House of Lords, thus the seat goes with the office. Upon the demise of the current Sovereign the Marquess of Cholmondeley will not continue to be a sitting member of the House unless granted a life peerage, whilst the next Lord Great Chamberlain will get the seat reserved for that Officer. No life peerage is required. -mush01 13:44, 07 March 2015 (UTC)

Next question: If Lorraine Wilson dies before the next monarch and without issue (as it actually looks like; she's even not married..)who will then the be Lord Great Chamberlain, her sister or her husband? Or will it pass to the next in line to the Lord Great Chamberlainship? Xerxes M.F. 28.9.2006

If she dies without issue, I think, her heirs will be her sisters (and their heirs) equally, so their part of the office will be increased to 1/60. --VM (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Plural

Is the plural for this really "Lords Great Chamberlain"? I mean, for "Attorneys-General" and what-not, "attorney" is clearly the noun, and "general" an adjective describing it. But the main title here is "Chamberlain". IN fact, the title is really simply the "Great Chamberlain", with the lord haphazardly added in because at some point someone decided that a "Lord" needed to be added to the beginning of pretty much all offices. So, is this really correct? john 05:18, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with you here, John. I'd definitely say "Lord High Stewards", "Lord High Chancellors", "Lord High Treasurers", "Lord Great Chamberlains", "Lord High Constables" and "Lord High Admirals", since they are definitely primarily Stewards, Chancellors, Treasurers, etc. However, the other offices are more difficult. Is a Lord President of the Council a Lord who happens to be presiding over the Privy Council or a president of the Privy Council who is lordly? I'd probably be inclined to say the latter, but I'm not sure. Is a Lord Privy Seal a Seal? Surely not - he's a Lord who is in charge of the Privy Seal, so should more than one of them be Lords Privy Seal? It would make sense logically, but might look out of place with the others. Then of course you have the Lords of the Admiralty, who were styled together as the "Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty", which seems to be the result of indecision over whether they were Lords or Commissioners (the same still presumably applies to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury). If we were to take these as the basis of general pluralisation, as they are the only ones of whom there are ever more than one (there would be no official reference to more than one Lord High Chancellor, for instance, because there's only ever one of them), then we would have Lords High Chancellors and Lords Great Chamberlains. Oh, it's all too complicated - the only way to know definitively is probably to ask the Palace. Proteus 13:35, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...The Lord Privy Seal is really the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, isn't he? So Lords Keepers of the Privy Seal? I think that could be abbreviated as Lords Privy Seal. Certainly "Lord Privy Seals" sounds wrong. I'm wary of the Lord part, since it's generally been added on later. It used to be you'd simply have the President of the Privy Council, the Keeper of the Privy Seal, the High Chancellor, the High Steward, the Marshal, the High constable, the Steward of the Household, the Commissioners of the Treasury and the Admiralty, and so on. The "Lord" started out as simply an honorific. Asking the palace always seems good...too bad they don't have an email address, or anything...and they probably wouldn't actually know, anyway. "Lords High Chancellors" certainly sounds bizarre. (To note, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has a list of "Lord Chancellors", but there are numerous Hansard's references to "Lords Chancellor". john 19:14, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My original impression was that the honorific gets a plural. For instance, I thought that one would write, if there were two persons named Smith, "Messrs Smith," rather than "Mr Smiths". And just a couple of questions: firstly, is it known that Lady Alexandra Palmer was living until 1955? Secondly, during the times when the earldom of Oxford was forfeit, was there anyone who performed the functions of the LGC? -- Emsworth 20:17, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

I've just received a reply from Buckingham Palace after asking them specifically about the correct plural of Lord Great Chamberlain (to be frank, I was testing to see how trivial of a question they would spend time replying to). I offered in my letter that my opinion was that the correct plural of Lord Great Chamberlain ought to be Lords Great Chamberlains, as "Lord" and "Chamberlain" are both noun-subjects in the title. The Palace replied that they "think [my] guess is the correct one." So they stopped short of declaring The Answer, but it seems that if they ever needed to use the plural, "Lords Great Chamberlains" would be what they'd use. 2605:A000:1210:C0EF:F4E2:7351:25BC:9883 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As to the first question, a posting on ATR from Louis Epstein, who is, while utterly insane, very knowledgeable about the peerage, is the source for Lady Alexandra Palmer dying in 1955. Burkes's entry on the Barons Carrington would probably have the details, though - I'm in the library, so I'll go check. I don't know about the second question, but presumably it was given to somebody else (and, in fact, it's rather likely that many Earls of Oxford did not actually exercise the dignity). Neither Complete Peerage nor Haydn's Book of Dignities gives the full list, however. I shall look into this further, but I'm not sure where to look. john 22:23, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, according to Mr Epstein, "Burke's does not explore her [Lady Alexandra Palmer's] issue." -- Emsworth 22:26, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yep...it does not (or, at least, Burke's peerage does not). It does confirm 1955 as her year of death, however. I will now go check out Burke's Landed Gentry to see if, perhaps, Colonel Palmer is among the families listed there. john 22:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While you're there, would you mind checking if the 5th Baron Nunburnholme's daughters are listed?

Yeah, I'll look. As to the issue of Lady Alexandra Palmer, it is in the Landed Gentry (which, unfortunately, is from 1972):

Lady Alexandra Palmer married Colonel William Llewellen Palmer in 1910. They had four sons: Peter Michael George Llewellen Palmer (b.1911), who was k.i.a. in WWII in 1942; Anthony William Allen Llewellen Palmer (b.1912), who married the Hon. Veronica De Saumarez in 1945 (no children); Julian Llewellen Palmer (b.1914, k.i.a.1941); and Lt Col. Timothy Llewellen Palmer (b.1917), who married Cynthia Graham Menzies and had, as of 1972, three sons - Julian Neil (b.1963), Charles Anthony (b.1967), and Michael Malcolm (b.1971), and one daughter, Alexandra Joan (b.1964). More information is available here: [2], It would seem that Anthony died childless in 1990. Tim died 1979, and Julian died unexpectedly in 2002, leaving a son Nicholas. So, we can tentatively say that this share was held by Anthony Llewellen Palmer from 1955 to 1990, then by Julian until his death in 2002, and and is currently held by Nicholas. Whoo...on to the Nunburnholme's... (have you accounted for all the Dartmouth coheirs, by the way?) john 22:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay...It is the 4th Baron Nunburnholme whose daughters succeeded to his shares. The 4th Baron died in 1998. His daughters, according to the 1999 Burke's, are Lorraine Mary Charmiane Nicole (b.1959); Tatiana Ines Alexandra (b.1960), m.1988 Nigel L. Dent, and has two sons, Frederick, and Harry Barnaby Nigel; Ines Monica (b.1963), m.1988 Anthony Richard Leslie Garton and has one son, Tristan John Leslie; and Ysabel (b.1963). The 5th Baron Nunburnholme was the brother of the 4th Baron, and is also dead, succeeded by his son. But the 6th Baron does not have a share in the Great Chamberlainship. john 23:07, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alright, as to Dartmouth, we have the 7th Earl and Lady Ruperta Wynn-Carington, have...

1. Lady Mary Findlay (1908-2003)-Commander Jonathan Findlay (b.1933)
2. Lady Elizabeth Basset (1908-2000)-Bryan Basset (b.1932)
3. Lady Diana Matthews (1910-1970)-James Hamilton-Russell, her son by her first marriage (b.1938)
4. Lady Barbara Kwiatkowski (b.1916, seemingly alive)-Jan Kwiatkowski is her son and heir-apparent (b.1945)
5. Josceline, Marchioness of Donegall (b.1918, seemingly still alive)-Earl of Belfast is her heir-apparent.

Hey, have we got pretty much all of it taken care of, then? 130.91.119.213 23:19, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to Thepeerage.com, Lady Donegall died in 1995. It would seem, then, that all is well, except for the death date of Timothy Palmer. -- Emsworth 23:24, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

A change: Marjorie, Baroness Nunburnholme died in 1953, not in 1968. (My source for the former was, I think, Louis Epstien. My source for 1953 was Cambridge -- Emsworth 00:24, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

My source is both Debrett's AND Burke's,agreeing on the year and the latter giving specific date she died...I doubt they made this up.--Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

For the purposes of the table: is it known who died first, David Viscount Bury, or the 5th Marquess of Cholmondeley? Both died in 1968; sources suggest that Lord Bury died on 8 November, but I don't know about Lord Cholmondeley. It would seem, however, more likely that Lord Cholmondeley died earlier, because Lord Bury died in the later part of the year. -- Emsworth 00:37, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

The 5th Marquess died on 16 september, according to [3]. john 00:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The future Lady Donegall has been shown on the table as Lady Templemore. I would suggest that the highest title be used throughout, so that the reader is not confused as to whether the two are the same or not- the matter is confusing enough already. -- Emsworth 01:21, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

She did not become Marchioness of Donegall until 1975. I think the title which the highest title held for the period under discussion should be used, although this may be confusing. john 01:39, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very well. We'll have to change Lord Linconshire, who was previously Lord Carrington. Furthermore, we have the Dowager Ladies Aveland and Cholmondeley. Separately, I forsee a problem at 1990. Firstly, we may not know when Timothy Palmer died. Secondly, the same problem that occurred in 1968 might happen again. Both the 6th Marquess of Cholmondeley and Anthony Palmer died in 1990. -- Emsworth 01:41, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes...and we don't know when Mr. Palmer died, and I've no idea when, in that year, he died. Perhaps someone has access to a more recent edition of Burke's Landed Gentry than I, and can provide this information. ETA: Perhaps you're right about just using the highest title. It would certainly be simpler. john 01:43, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Timothy Palmer died February 1, 1978. --Wik 20:51, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

Earl of Oxford contends that the 13th Earl was forfeit in 1485- was his title of LGC not also taken away? -- Emsworth 01:25, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...he was forfeit in 1475, and restored in 1485. (The 13th Earl was a leading Lancastrian, and led the Earl of Richmond's army at Bosworth Field). john 01:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another correction needed

The genealogy in Burke's for the old Earls of Oxford makes clear that the 1626 change was the point at which the heirs in the female line got the office,not the more distant male heir as stated in the article.(The male line heirs were the Veres,who died out with the 20th Earl.It seems to have gone to the 17th Earl's younger sister rather than his elder sister or his daughters(all of whom have issue surviving to this day).But,if it had gone to heirs general in the first place the heir of line of Aubrey de Vere temp Henry I is the Duke of Northumberland! (Not Lady Strange,who claims to be his heir in her Debrett's entry).--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Benefits of the Office?

As the rights to the office become more diluted with passing generations (we now have persons with a 1/100th claim), I wonder if there is a salary or other benefit (other than prestige) attached to the office that is shared-out each year? I guess I'm asking why holders of miniscule shares bother keeping them instead of waiving them in favor of a more senior claimant. If, say, the right to an invitation to the next coronation comes with each tiny claim on the office, I can see why a 1% holder would cling on, but absent some perquisite like that, I wonder if there is any advantage to the minor claimants to hang on. --StanZegel (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not shared out each year. The person who possesses it possesses it for an entire reign. So the Marquess of Cholmondeley will hold it through the reign of Elizabeth II. Then it will go to Lorraine Wilson or her heir for the next reign, then to Lord Cholmondeley or his heir for the next reign after that, then to Lady Willoughby de Eresby or her heir for the next reign after that, then to Julian Palmer or his heir for the reign after that, and so forth. Every other reign it goes to the Cholmondeley heir, because he has a 50% share. Half of the reigns when it doesn't go to the Cholmondeley, it goes to Willoughby de Eresby, due to her 25% share. And so forth. john k 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the rotation, but I'm wondering if there are any perks that make an undivided interest in the office to be valuable. Thus while someone else may be the incumbent during a reign, if there were a salary it is possible that the salary may be shared.

Not that I'm aware of. All the people with a non-exercising share possess is the right to transmit their share and possibly exercise it in a future reign. The whole thing is completely ridiculous. I hope the Committee of Privileges is proud of themselves about the ridiculous mess they created. Also, as far as I understand it, the various shares are effectively entailed, so the owner of a 1% share can't sell out. john k 02:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping page updated

I've just updated the tables to reflect the facts that:

1. Julian Palmer died in 2002 and his share passed to his only son Nicholas
2. Bryan Ronald Basset is the elder son of Lady Elizabeth Basset
3. Lady Mary Findlay died in 2003

The number of heirs will probably remain relatively stable during the next several years. Dent, Garton, Findlay, Basset, Hamilton-Russell, Kwiatkowski, Donegall, Albemarle, Legge-Bourke, all have male heirs; Lorraine and Ysabel Wilson are unmarried. Should Cholmondeley die without an heir of the body, as seems likely, his half share will be split among his sisters Lady Rose Cholmondeley (no heir), Lady Margot Huston (male heir), and Lady Caroline d'Erlanger (male heir). Should Willoughby de Eresby die under like circumstances, her share will be split between Aird and Miller. Choess (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Concern about the Cholmondeley half being split seems obsolete, for the time being; since this comment was written Cholmondeley has married and his wife has given birth to twin sons (in 2009). Gothamscholar (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Cromwell?

There are sources, like http://books.google.com/books?id=OKlCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=cromwell+%22lord+high+chamberlain%22&source=bl&ots=QCjbeIvTLF&sig=6bKBPGD8H41EyWtc2jt4zJLTCfg&hl=en&ei=HxlLS4CTPJHRlAed3viJDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cromwell%20%22lord%20high%20chamberlain%22&f=false, that say that thomas Cromwell was appointed Lord Great Chamberlain shortly before he fell from favor. Should he be inserted into the table (I guess between the earl who died in 1540 and his heir)? --Hickoryhillster (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lorraine Wilson?

I emailed the Lords Information Office about a few things, and among their replies was: "Should the Queen die the next person to hold the position of Lord Great Chamberlain would be the Honourable Rupert Carrington the son of Lord Carrington." Maybe the list of joint office-holders needs to be reviewed, but I'm not in a position to do it. 152.132.13.1 (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The House of Lords Information Office is absolutely wrong if they say that. Lord Carrington's grand-uncle, the marquess of Lincolnshire (and 3rd Baron Carrington), held a 1/4 share in the chamberlainship. He had no sons, so when he died, the Carrington title passed to his brother, the 4th Baron Carrington, Lord Carrington's grandfather. Lincolnshire's share in the chamberlainship, however, ought to have passed to his five daughters, each of whom got a 1/20 share. We can see that this is what happened because when Lord Lincolnshire died in 1928, he was actually the acting Lord Great Chamberlain for George V. The office went next not to his brother, the new Lord Carrington, but to his son-in-law, Lord Lewisham, who was presumably acting as a deputy for the co-heirs, his wife and her sisters. Lorraine Wilson is apparently the eldest daughter of the 4th Lord Nunburnholme, whose grandmother was Lord Lincolnshire's eldest daughter. I can't find much clear evidence of her existence, though; everything I can find on her seems to come back to this article as a source. What is clear is that in the next reign the Lord Great Chamberlain will come from among the co-heirs of Lord Lincolnshire or their representatives. It should also be clear that whoever this may be, it's not Lord Carrington or his son. john k (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that the article cites nothing as to the current rotation of the office, I'd certainly consider the House of Lords itself to be rather authoritative. Not that they can't be wrong, but it's the best thing we have to work with that isn't circularly cited. I'm saying this not to start an argument or anything, but to spur someone to find cites for Lorraine Wilson and the rest. Then maybe we can let the Lords know that they're wrong :) 99.155.95.183 (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the order we give has nothing to support it; in the next reign the LGC should go to someone among the coheirs of Lord Lincolnshire, but I'm not sure why we've decided that it's Lorraine Wilson. Other than that, informal responses to inquiries by the Lords Information Office can't be viewed as reliable when they directly contradict widely available and published information. The way that the LGC shares have proceeded in the past is well-established. In 1779, for instance, the fourth duke of Ancaster died, leaving two sisters and an uncle, who became fifth duke. If the LGC passed the way the LIO seems to think it does, then the LGC should have passed to the uncle, but in fact it passed to the fourth duke's sisters, who split it. There's a somewhat compllicated, but well-established, algorith for how the lord great chamberlainship descends; it goes to the last holder's heir general. If the last holder has multiple co-heirs (i.e., no sons, but daughters; no brothers, but sisters; etc.), then that person's share of the chamberlainship is divided among the co-heirs. The marquess of Lincolnshire had five daughters and a brother. When he died, his share passed to his daughters, not to his brother, and this can be demonstrated, as I said before, by the fact that his son-in-law became acting Lord Great Chamberlain after his death. The Lords Information Office has no idea what they're talking about if they think that Lord Carrington possessed a share of the Lord Great Chamberlainship. I'll try to find sources on this; I suspect that most of the peerage guides have a discussion of this. john k (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The next heir to the Lord Great Chamberlainship should -not- be Lorraine Wilson. Ms. Wilson is the senior heir-general of the eldest daughter of the Marquess of Lincolnshire, the Baroness Nunburnholme; however, the Baroness Nunburnholme already held the Great Chamberlainship between the death of her father in 1928 and the death of King George V in 1936, with her brother-in-law the Viscount Lewisham serving as her deputy. Logically, it should be the line of the second daughter of Lord Lincolnshire that is next to have its turn as LGC, skipping over the four Wilson sisters. In other words, it should be Nicholas Llewellyn Palmer (or, if for some reason he is not given a life peerage, his representative) who takes over from the Marquess of Cholmondeley after Queen Elizabeth passes away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.175.44 (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It will be neither Loraine Wilson nor Nicholas Llewellyn Palmer. It will be a deputy of the whole Carington share and it is expected that this will be Lord Carrington. This FOI is very interesting on this topic: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/543850/response/1308464/attach/3/FOI%203165%20Response.pdf Also, the deputy has to be of the rank of a knigth or higher (so, no need to be a peer, but only peers as LGC would have the rigth to sit in the Lords, but there is no need for the LGC to have a seat in the Lords), and I personally don't belive, that any peerage or knigthhood would be created by a 21st century Gouverment for a JHLGC.--Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

They really should just pass a short Act of Parliament retrospectively making the LGCship pass to the heir general without division of the last holder. (Altering the remainder of the Barony of Willoughby de Eresby along the same lines, ensuring that it doesn't fall into abeyance and that accordingly the LGC will always be a peer, would also be helpful.) If even the House of Lords can't work out what's going on, I think that's a sign that the situation is somewhat out of control. On topic, I think we should ignore the HoL here. First, it's not the HoL, all we've received is the opinion of some (unidentified, but probably clueless) underling. Secondly, official responses from official bodies in the UK to do with such matters (Buckingham Palace, etc.) unfortunately have a long, glorious and documented history of being utterly wrong. Proteus (Talk) 10:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

what happened in 2009?

Am I blind? I see no difference between the lists labeled "2003–2009" and "2009–". —Tamfang (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• William Legge-Bourke, who held a 1/20 share, died and was succeeded in that share by his son Harry Legge-Bourke. [4] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"or representative"

Of the fourteen shareholders listed in the rotation chart at the bottom of the article, eight are tagged with "(or his/her representative)". Why these and not the other six? Why are Palmer (listed five times) and L.Wilson (listed twice) so marked only once each? —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is to mark those who cannot, as of now, sit in the House of Lords by any title themselves, as the holder of either a life peerage or hereditary peerage (and being elected) - or in other words, as prior of the House of Lords Act 1999, as the holder of any peerage title. (I'm not sure what the reformation of the House of Lords says about the office of Lord Great Chamberlain in later reigns, as the office is now held by the Marquess of Cholmondeley; so his right to sit in the house, besides as Lord Great Chamberlain, would not be questioned if he were one of the elected hereditary peers.) So, I think, they will have to name a deputy who can sit in the House of Lords in his/her own right (besides the question of being elected), or to be created a peer themselves. Some items in the list just lack this addition, it seems. I'm not sure if this is the reason, though. And I hope you can understand what I mean.(lol) --VM (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A question

What is the reason that for instance the Cholmondeley line of succession is never split up between several heirs, while some of the other lines are often split between several co-heirs? There should be an explanation, or a link to an article where this is explained, in the text of this article. --213.236.196.39 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's because (as I misunderstand it) in English common law of inheritance there is no seniority between sisters. Each split occurred when the succession (of the whole, or of a share) passed to two or more sisters. It happened that in the Cholmondeley line there was always a male heir, so no further division. —Tamfang (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This must mean that inheritance of this office is different from that of the monarch's, since the monarchy is never split between several sisters. But then again, Lord Great Chamberlain is hardly an office as important as the Crown.--213.236.196.39 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This very question was discussed in Parliament during George VI's reign, because the case of Elizabeth and Margaret was unprecedented (except when the succession was disputed on other grounds as well). The conclusion was that no, the Crown (like a Scottish peerage) is not subject to such division. Maybe the Act of Settlement 1701 has wording compelling such a conclusion. —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sword of state

I have removed the reference to the LGC 'technically' carrying the Sword of State at openings of parliament, since this assertion was unattributed, and I believe it was infact the prerogative of the Lord High Constable, an office now in abeyance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barabbas1312 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

1540-1553

The original article says the office returned to De Vere right after Cromwell. According to the cited source, it didn't. It went through several other figures (Sussex, Hertford, etc.) and only returned to the De Vere line in 1553. I made the correction here, but probably should be done on the individual pages as well. Walrasiad (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Bryan Basset

It seems that Bryan Basset has died 2010: [5] Could someone please update the article? --Intimidator (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank You! --Intimidator (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

David Basset

David Basset (1961-2010) died in 2010, and appears therefore to have been succeeded by his next younger brother Michael James Basset (b.1963) (see Debrett's Peerage, 2015, Earl of Leicester). Could someone please kindly update the article?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC))

Done. Opera hat (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lord Great Chamberlain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106031947/http://www.debretts.com/people/royal-family/the-royal-household/great-officers-of-state.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/royal-family/the-royal-household/great-officers-of-state.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928130935/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index1088.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index1088.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Chart

Can we have the chart back please which showed exactly how many monarchs would have to die for each holder to exercise the role? Wolfita (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, becauce it was based on false assumptions. As far as I knwo, it will be rigth now only: 1. Lord Carrington 2. Marquess de Cholmondeley 3. Baroness Willoughby de Eresby (or maybe a deputy) 4. Marquess de Cholmondeley and so on.--Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Llewellen Palmer

This source is not in agreement with the tree of the joint hereditary lord great chamberlains: http://www.thepeerage.com/p8070.htm#i80692

Timothy Llewellen Palmer is not a son of Lady Alexandra Llewellen Palmer, but Julian Llewellen Palmer is a son of Brig. Anthony Llewellen Palmer. Does anyone know more about it? --2A02:908:C62:FB60:B0CD:270:6510:7BF4 (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)