AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Superwoman, is she any happier?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
NoirFemme



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1463
Location: America

PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

veasleyd1 wrote:
Perhaps we need a clear and distinct definition as to whether the word "woman" as used here applies only to those middle class and above in the past, or to all adult females of the period.


And you cannot forget factors of race/ethnicity. Traditionally--and still today--women of color have had less freedom/choice than "white" women (whatever ethnicity was considered "white" in its generation).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Allyson



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some of this also could apply to men! The debate about whether or not modern life is better, with all of our choices...in the past, men didn't have nearly the choices they do today. Most men would work in the same job their father did. There weren't many choices outside of joining the military or the church to get outside of there. And men might have had more luck with not marrying--but not if they were the heir of any sort, then they had to have legitimate offspring.

So some of this discussion isn't really about feminism at all but the way modern society has given everyone a lot more freedom. And some will happier with that, some not, but going back isn't a particularly desirable option either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
msaggie



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 668

PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:32 pm    Post subject: Off-topic about children Reply with quote

Margaret wrote:
..My question is going way off topic, but how is it for children of modern first world societies? Better...worse...same? Are violence rates up among children or poverty rates, etc? I don't really know...it seems we hear about more of them, but perhaps due to constant media coverage.
Margaret I am not a sociologist, but I think in general, children are better protected against abuse nowadays than 50-100 years ago. In parts of the UK (Scotland springs to my mind, and I can't remember whether England and Wales, and Northern Ireland have similar laws) they have outlawed physical punishment for children, by schools (e.g. no caning, etc) and also to some extent, by parents. I remember the arguments against this (i.e. "spare the rod and spoil the child", there will be so many more spoilt children, etc). Of course, in the 19th century, there were all these children who were used as child labour, and laws have been passed to protect children from being over-worked etc, and to make sure that they go to school (mandatory to a certain age).

Different first world societies have different stresses and mores, even for children. I am reminded that suicide rates are much higher among teenagers and young people in Japan than other first world countries. Then, in certain neighbourhoods in the US, teenagers may be more prone to gang-related activities (shooting/knife attacks, etc). On the other hand, in affluent nations, children are much more likely to be obese nowadays than 50 years ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cora



Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 1127
Location: Bremen, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't really get all those complaints about "too many choices". We don't have too many choices today, rather we - both men and women - finally have a good range of choices regarding how we want to live. And that's a very good thing.

The problem IMO is not that there are too many choices but that some people are reluctant to choose, that they do not know what they truly want and choose what they think they should want rather than what they really want.

For example, I suspect that a lot of people, both men and women, still get married and/or have children not because they truly want to, but because there still are strong social and media messages that marrying and having children is what one is supposed to do. If you don't believe me, just try being a voluntarily single and childless woman. You'll constantly find yourself bombarded with messages that you're selfish, worthless, a shriveled up bitch or that you'll change your mind once the right man comes along.

Or take the increasing complaints about young men in their 20s and 30s who supposedly refuse to grow up (i.e. get married and have children and live a 50s type family life) and live as perpetual adolescents. These young men have made the choice that marriage and parenthood are not for them (and some actually have children, they just aren't traditional fathers) and that's a good thing for them. But again society pushes messages at these young men that their choices are wrong.

On the other hand, young women feel pushed to have a career and return to their jobs quickly, while leaving their children in the care of nannies or daycare centers, even though they'd actually prefer being stay-at-home moms. At the same time, there certainly are young men who would like a more involved role with their children as well, but feel pressured to work long hours. Sometimes, this even goes as far as stigmatizing stay-at-home parents. To some degree that's currently happening in Germany, where childless people are stigmatized as "selfish" and stay-at-home mothers are increasingly stigmatized as "lazy".

Instead of complaining about "too many choices", we should help people figure out what they really want, respect their individual choices and - on a government and social level - support people in their choices.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1353

PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm pretty sure "women's liberation" is a 20th Century coinage, but the struggle for rights goes back much longer. Unless I'm misremembering, the women's suffrage movement (right to vote) in the U.S. in the 19th & early 20th Centuries faced even nastier opposition than more recent struggles for rights, with widespread physical violence against suffragettes. Unfortunately, modern lack of education in history seems to lead to some trivializing of the rights so many suffered so much to gain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
veasleyd1



Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 2064

PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Allyson wrote:
Some of this also could apply to men! The debate about whether or not modern life is better, with all of our choices...in the past, men didn't have nearly the choices they do today. Most men would work in the same job their father did. There weren't many choices outside of joining the military or the church to get outside of there. And men might have had more luck with not marrying--but not if they were the heir of any sort, then they had to have legitimate offspring.


Actually, they didn't have to. Significant numbers of titled, land-owning, men never married. That's largely ignored by romance writers. The nature of the genre requires them to pair couples up for a HEA, so the hero may be reluctant at first to "do his duty" but eventually he succumbs.

In the real world, goodly numbers of heirs never married -- so many that in my data base, I really enter [died unmarried] into the line for "spouse" so I can sort them out quickly for reference purposes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margaret



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 879

PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:42 am    Post subject: Re: Off-topic about children Reply with quote

msaggie, I was wondering more about rates of violence committed by children...although I think I went on a tangent that really didn't 'fit' this conversation. Thanks for responding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Elaine S



Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 666
Location: Rural England

PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

veasleyd1 wrote:
Significant numbers of titled, land-owning, men never married. That's largely ignored by romance writers. The nature of the genre requires them to pair couples up for a HEA, so the hero may be reluctant at first to "do his duty" but eventually he succumbs.

In the real world, goodly numbers of heirs never married -- so many that in my data base, I really enter [died unmarried] into the line for "spouse" so I can sort them out quickly for reference purposes.


Virginia - I am curious about your database of significant numbers of those with heriditary titles not marrying. Many people died early due to poor health which was, of course, not uncommon. How have you constructed your database? Any particular published sources? I can certainly see the case for younger sons, because they often had to make their own way and went into professions where marriage was either a barrier or outright forbidden: universities, army, navy, church or the bar.

When I look at family trees, I often see men marrying several times due to the early deaths of wives (presumably in childbirth) and I've presumed this was in an effort to get an heir, especially where there were unbreakable entails involved.

Elaine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2478

PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

veasleyd1 wrote:
Quote:
This may apply only to women of middle class and above. I cannot think that the life of a woman today is more difficult than that of an agricultural worker, a mill worker, or those who during the early industrial revolution crawled on their hands and knees to pull carts in the mines.


Since the original question was about "happiness," I thought we were talking about emotional and psychic matters. I don't think there's any question that physical difficulties have been reduced for nearly everybody...except perhaps in third world countries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
veasleyd1



Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 2064

PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Elaine S wrote:
veasleyd1 wrote:
Significant numbers of titled, land-owning, men never married. That's largely ignored by romance writers. The nature of the genre requires them to pair couples up for a HEA, so the hero may be reluctant at first to "do his duty" but eventually he succumbs.

In the real world, goodly numbers of heirs never married -- so many that in my data base, I really enter [died unmarried] into the line for "spouse" so I can sort them out quickly for reference purposes.


Virginia - I am curious about your database of significant numbers of those with heriditary titles not marrying. Many people died early due to poor health which was, of course, not uncommon. How have you constructed your database? Any particular published sources? I can certainly see the case for younger sons, because they often had to make their own way and went into professions where marriage was either a barrier or outright forbidden: universities, army, navy, church or the bar.

When I look at family trees, I often see men marrying several times due to the early deaths of wives (presumably in childbirth) and I've presumed this was in an effort to get an heir, especially where there were unbreakable entails involved.

Elaine



Yes, men often married several times (but, honestly, so did women, if one tracks it out). It was more, I think, the result of comparatively short lifespans than a need for heirs. Men seemed to remarried quite readily even if they already had two or three sons from the first marriage.

As for construction of the data base, it's been growing for a couple of decades. It doesn't just contain members of the British peerage and gentry, but also occasional medieval lines when I wanted to determine relationships in the early modern period, large numbers of 17th century Germans (with some French, Spanish, and Dutch, far fewer Poles and Russians), some colonial American settlers, and other individuals classified as "historical down-timers" in whom I happened to have an interest at the time I was making the entries. I keep it in Family Tree Maker and it currently has, according to the automated count, over 110,000 individuals. The automated count isn't strictly accurate because some of the "parents" counted as individuals are entries along the line of "Erfurt City Council" or "College de France Professors."

Even more younger sons (about 20 %) did not marry than heirs/actual title holders did not marry (about 12%) in the early modern era.

For purposes of figuring out those title holders in the British peerage (from the accession of James I to about the 1820s) who "died unmarried" -- actual title holders as a social history or demographic phenomenon -- I excluded from the count all who:
died under the age of 21;
are historically noted to have been insane or mentally retarded;
are historically noted to have been seriously physically handicapped or chronically ill;
were from Roman Catholic peerage families and took clerical orders.

The count did not include eldest sons (heirs apparent) who predeceased their fathers (no matter how old they were at the time of their death).

I've used a wide variety of sources -- everything from the peerage/baronetage manuals to historical works, encyclopedia entries,
and the like.

Random examples from various ranks:

Francis Russell 2nd duke of Bedford (1765-1802)

John Tufton 4th earl of Thanet (1638-1680)

Borlaise Cokaine 6th viscount Cullen (1740-1810)

Christopher 3rd baron Mansell (d. 1744) (as had his nephew, the 2nd baron)

Thomas Charles Keyt, 4th Bt. (1712-1755) -- his younger brother, Robert Keyt, 5th Bt. (1724-1784) also died unmarried.

If you want a complete list of the ones I have identified, I can provide it, but give me a while. Alternatively, I could burn the entire data base onto a CD and mail it to you.

Online, the Peerage website is a very convenient reference, with the following type of data:
http://thepeerage.com/p2940.htm

John Tufton, 4th Earl of Thanet was born on 7 August 1638.1 He was the son of John Tufton, 2nd Earl of Thanet and Lady Margaret Sackville.1 He died on 27 April 1680 at age 41, unmarried.1
John Tufton, 4th Earl of Thanet was educated at Eton College, Eton, Berkshire, England.2 He was educated at Queen's College, Oxford University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, England.2 He held the office of Member of Parliament (M.P.) (Tory) for Steyning in 1679.2 He succeeded to the title of 16th Lord Clifford [E., 1299] on 24 November 1679, de jure.1 He succeeded to the title of 4th Earl of the Isle of Thanet, co. Kent [E., 1628] on 24 November 1679.2
Citations

1. [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 297. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.
2. [S37] Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 1064. Hereinafter cited as Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 107th edition.


Here's an example of the kind of biographical information a person can locate and include in the notes:
http://members.shaw.ca/panthers5/4th%265thKeytBart.html

SIR THOMAS CHARLES KEYT, 4th BARONET

& SIR ROBERT KEYT, 5th BARONET

Holy Trinity Church
THOMAS CHARLES KEYT
was the eldest son of Sir William Keyt, the 3rd Baronet, and his wife Hon. Anne nee Tracy. He was christened at Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon on 23rd November 1712. On 3rd July 1729 at the age of 16 he matriculated at University College, the first college to be built in Oxford.

University College
In 1740 Thomas Charles sold The College in Stratford-upon-Avon which he had been given by his father in 1734. Then on 4th September 1741 Thomas Charles became the 4th Keyt Baronet, inheriting the Baronetcy from his father. Presumably he also inherited debts from his father as shortly after becoming Baronet he sold the Burnt Norton estate in Gloucestershire to Nathaniel Ryder, the 1st Baron Harrowby and son of Sir Dudley Ryder, Lord Chief Justice of England, (the two farms comprising the Upper Norton Estate were subsequently leased out to Thomas Dutton, son of John Dutton and Elizabeth nee Keyt, by Sir Dudley Ryder at an annual rent of £220 on September 18, 1753)

Burnt Norton House and estate
With his mother Lady Anne Keyt he then secured a loan of £22,000 from Philip Lord Hardwicke by a mortgage on Halstead Hall at Stixwold in Lincolnshire. He later sold Halstead Hall to Admiral Lord Anson of Shugborough Hall in Staffordshire in a tri-partite sale with Lord Hardwicke.


Halstead Hall
Sir Thomas Charles Keyt, 4th Baronet, died on 24th July 1755 at Middle Hill Mansion House, the home of the Savage family near Broadway in Gloucestershire. He was buried in the vault at St. Eadburgha's Church in Ebrington. He had never married.


St. Eadburgha's Church
With Sir Thomas Charles having no heir the Keyt Baronetcy was inherited by his younger brother ROBERT KEYT. Robert had been born in Warwickshire on 18th December 1724, Warwickshire and then he too was christened at Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon on 24th December.
When he became the 5th Keyt Baronet by inherited the Baronetcy from his brother, Robert was living at Spennithorne, 2 miles north-east of Middleham in Yorkshire and so was known as the baronet of Middleham. He probably lived at Spennithorne Hall although he could have lived at Spennithorne House.

Spennithorne Hall
Spennithorne House

Sir Robert Keyt, 5th Baronet, never married, though there are unproved reports of an illegitimate child at Middleham! He died at Spennithorpe on 6th July 1784 and having no heir the Baronetcy died with him. According to a letter from John Cockcroft, Curator of Middleham, dated 30th April 1813 to Rev. Edward Gibbs Walford of Banbury in Oxfordhire Sir Robert was buried at Middleham on 9th July 1784.


Middleham Church
In his Will, which was made on 29th June 1784 "I Sir Robert Keyt of Middleham in the County of York Baronet Do make this my last Will and Testament in manner and Form following, that is to say, to my Housekeeper Sarah Varley of Middleham aforesaid her Heirs, Executors, Administrators and Assigns respectfully I give, devise and bequeath all my Real Estate and also all my money, securities for Money, Books, Palte, Linnen, Household, Furniture and personal Estate whatsoever and of what nature or kind soever the same be, to and for her and their sole and only proper Use and Benefit Subject nevertheless to the Payment of all my just Debts and Funeral Expenses, and I constitute and appoint the said Sarah Varley sole Executrix of this my Will - and revoke all Wills by me at any Time heretofore made I publish and declare this to be my last Will and Testament this Twenty Ninth Day of June in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty four
---- Robert Keyt".

Sir Robert's Will was proved in October 1784. He had left everything he had to his housekeeper, a lady named Sarah Varley.


Postscript:-
Robert's Will raises one or two questions. In it he leaves everything to "my Housekeeper Sarah Varley of Middleham aforesaid, her Heirs.......". So who exactly was Sarah, was she a spinster living in or a married lady, and why does Robert mention her "Heirs’?
As Robert left everything to Sarah it suggests that she had been his housekeeper for a long time and so was most likely a spinster living in Spennithorne Hall/House. If this was so she may well have been a local lady who he employed after moving to Spennithorpe i.e. 'of Middleham', or she may have moved to Spennithorne from Gloucestershire with Robert. A search through the on-line I.G.I. found no Sarah Varleys of the right sort of age in either Yorkshire or Gloucestershire, though the following were found:-

----------------------------Sarah Fairly -- christened at Mickleton in Gloucestershire on 2nd September 1747
----------------------------Sarah Farley -- christened at Haworth in Yorkshire on 3rd November 1759
----------------------------Sarah Farley -- christened at Castlemorton in Worcestershire on 3rd March 1766
----------------------------Sarah Farley -- christened at Ripple in Worcestershire on 29th May 1768

It would seem that the last three Sarahs were probably too young to have been Robert's housekeeper. Even ignoring her age the Sarah Farley from Haworth is unlikely to have been employed by Robert as Haworth is more than 30 miles south of Spennithorne and not on a direct route. For the same reasons the two Sarah Fawleys who born in Worcestershire seem unlikely, perhaps even more so. This leaves Sarah Fairly who was christened in Mickleton by William Farley and his wife Ann Bishop, both of Mickleton, who were married at Aston-sub-Edge on 27th September 1743. Certainly she was old enough to have been Robert's housekeeper and the Keyt family had had contacts with Mickleton since the mid to late 1500's. Sarah Fairly from Mickleton therefore seems the most likely candidate. This theory may be supported by the fact that in his Will dated 4th June 1733 (proved in 1737) Hastings Keyt of Broadway made reference to a Sammuel ffarley, someone who was possibly related to Sarah Farley of Mickleton
There is another possibility, that Sarah was in fact a married lady living close to Spennithorne Hall/House and so the wedding of a lady named Sarah to a Mr. Varley or Farley was next looked for on the on-line I.G.I.. Although there were hundreds of such weddings in England no suitable candidates were found so, although not conclusive, once again we are left with Sarah Fairly, or maybe Varley from Mickleton. Until we know more she has to be the most likely person to have been Robert's housekeeper.
One other thing that comes out of Robert's Will is the fact that he mentions "Sarah Varley of Middleham aforesaid, her Heirs.........". Did Sarah perhaps have an 'Heir' and if so could this "Heir" have been an illegitimate child? Perhaps we will never know.
Produced by Roger Keight roger.keight@virgin.net in December 2004 – last updated in September 2006.


Last edited by veasleyd1 on Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cora



Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 1127
Location: Bremen, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

veasleyd1 wrote:
The automated count isn't strictly accurate because some of the "parents" counted as individuals are entries along the line of "Erfurt City Council" or "College de France Professors."


I now have a very disturbing mental image of a wild orgy committed by the entire Erfurt City Council, which results in various pregnancies with inattributable parentage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
veasleyd1



Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 2064

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cora wrote:
veasleyd1 wrote:
The automated count isn't strictly accurate because some of the "parents" counted as individuals are entries along the line of "Erfurt City Council" or "College de France Professors."


I now have a very disturbing mental image of a wild orgy committed by the entire Erfurt City Council, which results in various pregnancies with inattributable parentage.


The "parent" labeled as "Jesuit Order, 17th century" will probably entertain you even more.

It's not genealogical, but it's very handy to have when someone suddenly asks me "can you give me a list of a dozen or so officers who served under Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar and I need them before 9:00 p.m."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
veasleyd1



Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 2064

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Elaine S wrote:
veasleyd1 wrote:
Significant numbers of titled, land-owning, men never married. That's largely ignored by romance writers. The nature of the genre requires them to pair couples up for a HEA, so the hero may be reluctant at first to "do his duty" but eventually he succumbs.

In the real world, goodly numbers of heirs never married -- so many that in my data base, I really enter [died unmarried] into the line for "spouse" so I can sort them out quickly for reference purposes.


Virginia - I am curious about your database of significant numbers of those with heriditary titles not marrying. Many people died early due to poor health which was, of course, not uncommon. How have you constructed your database? Any particular published sources? I can certainly see the case for younger sons, because they often had to make their own way and went into professions where marriage was either a barrier or outright forbidden: universities, army, navy, church or the bar.

When I look at family trees, I often see men marrying several times due to the early deaths of wives (presumably in childbirth) and I've presumed this was in an effort to get an heir, especially where there were unbreakable entails involved.

Elaine


This conclusion isn't new to me, BTW -- it was pointed out for the 18th century in England by John Cannon when he wrote Aristocratic Century.

Here are some more (again a random sample -- there's at least one more bachelor duke)

Thomas Howard 5th duke of Norfolk (1627-1677) [died in exile, Padua]
William Douglas 4th duke of Queensberry (1724-1810)
William Cavendish, 6th duke of Devonshire (1790-1858)

James Johnstone 2nd marquess of Annandale (1688-1730)
George Johnstone 3rd marquess of Annandale (1720-1792)

Abraham Creighton 2nd earl Erne of Crom Castle (1765-1842)
Charles Weston 3rd earl of Portland (1639-1665)
Henry Newport 3rd earl of Bradford (1683-1734)
Robert Maxwell 2nd earl of Nithsdale (1620-1667)
James Ogilvy 7th earl of Findlater (1750-1811)
Henry Paget 2nd earl of Uxbridge (1719-1769)
Robert Spencer 4th earl of Sunderland (1701-1729)
Henry Francis Conyngham earl of Mount Charles (1795-1824)
Hamilton Boyle 6th earl of Cork (1730-1764)

Cary Roper 3rd viscount Baltinglass (d. 1672, age about 50)

Patrick Leslie 2nd baron Lindores (about 1580-1649) [he left 67
acknowledged illegitimate children]

John Beaumont 2nd Bt. (1607-1644)

Unsurprisingly, the compilations of "extinct" peerages and baronetcies provide a fair amount of information in regard to the marriage-resistant males in cases where brothers and nephews also did not marry.

I have to run an errand now. If you want more, please let me know.


Last edited by veasleyd1 on Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:50 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
veasleyd1



Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 2064

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More title-holders who died unmarried:

John Egerton 2nd duke of Bridgewater (1727-1748)
[barely made the "at least age 21 at death" cutoff]
Francis Egerton 3rd duke of Bridgewater (1736-1803)
Charles Powlett 5th duke of Bolton (c. 1718-1765)
[he left an acknowledged illegitimate daughter]
Edward Seymour 9th duke of Somerset (1717-1792)
John Ker 3rd duke of Roxburghe (1740-1804)

George Hamilton 3rd earl of Abercorn (c. 1636-1680)
[died in exile in Padua]
James Hamilton 8th earl of Abercorn (1712-1789)
William Lowther 2nd earl of Lonsdale (1787-1872)
Charles Douglas-Hamilton 2nd earl of Selkirk (1663-1739)
Henry Noel 6th earl of Gainsborough (1743-1798)
John Ligonier 1st earl Ligonier (1680-1770)
Edward Howard 8th earl of Suffolk (1672-1731)
Charles William Howard 7th earl of Suffolk (1693-1722)
John Finch 6th earl of Winchilsea (1683-1729)
Richard Nugent 3rd earl of Westmeath (d. 1714, age about 50)
William Augustus West, 3rd earl De La Warr (1757-1783)
Nicholas Leke 4th earl of Scarsdale (1682-1736)
William Berkeley 1st earl Fitzhardinge (1786-1857)
Thomas Berkeley 6th earl of Berkeley (1796-1882)
John Dawson 2nd earl of Portarlington (1781-1845)
John Savage 5th earl Rivers (1665-1737)
Gilbert Talbot 13th earl of Shrewsbury (1673-1743)
Fitton Gerard 3rd earl of Macclesfield (1665-1702)
Edward Bligh 2nd earl of Darnley (1715-1747)
John Campbell 4th earl of Loudoun (1705-1782)
Henry Shirley 3rd earl Ferrers (1691-1745)
Edward Bruce 1st earl of Kincardine (d. 1662, aged over 40)
Alexander Bruce 3rd earl of Kincardine (1666-1705)
George Finch 9th earl of Winchilsea (1752-1826)
Horace Walpole 4th earl of Orford (1717-1797)
Francis Hastings 10th earl of Huntingdon (1728-1789)
Richard Lumley 2nd earl of Scarbrough (1688-1740)
[was betrothed at the time of his suicide]
John Lumley-Savile 8th earl of Scarborough (1788-1856)
William Courtenay 9th earl of Devon (1768-1835)
[died in exile in Paris; probably homosexual]

Augustus Keppel 1st viscount Keppel of Elvedon (1725-1786)
Archibald Seton 2nd viscount Kingston (1661-1714)
Henry William Monckton 3rd viscount Galway (1749-1774)

Arthur Moyes Sandys 2nd baron Sandys (1792-1860)
William Arden 2nd baron Alvanley (1789-1849)
[the one mentioned in a lot of Regencies]
Archibald Douglas, 2nd baron Douglas (1773-1844)
Charles Douglas, 3rd baron Douglas (1775-1848)
Thomas Lucas, 3rd baron Lucas of Shenfield (c. 1649-1705)
Henry Hastings 1st baron Loughborough (1610-1666)
Charles Dormer 6th baron Dormer (d. 1761, aged over 60 years]
Robert Carey 7th baron Hunsdon (d. 1702, aged over 50 years)
George Eure 6th baron Eure (c. 1625-1672)
Ralph Eure 7th baron Eure (c. 1630-1707)
Neville Lovelace 6th baron Lovelace (1708-1736)
Henry Sandford 2nd baron Mount Sandford (1805-1828) [killed in a riot]
Joseph Henry Blake 2nd baron Wallscourt (1795-18160
[barely made the "at least 21 at age of death" cutoff]
George Fulke Lyttleton 2nd baron Westcote (1763-1828)
Fulwer Craven, 4th baron Craven (d. 1764, aged about 50)

Thomas Hesilrigge, 4th Bt. (d. 1700)
Thomas Grosvenor, 5th Bt. (1693-1733)
George Savile, 8th Bt. (1726-1784)
Metcalfe Robinson, 2nd Bt. (c. 1683-1738)
Francis Bridgeman, 3rd Bt. (1713-1740) [died at sea]

Mary Verney, baroness Fermanagh in her own right (1737-1810)
Anastasia Stafford-Howard, baroness Stafford in her own right (1722-1807)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
veasleyd1



Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 2064

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here come some more. Please note that when it comes to dukes, another exclusion I made was the royal dukes of the era, because the sons of the first three Georges would have skewed the statistics so oddly.

Please also note that when a title-holder died as a bachelor under the age of 35 or so, I've added notes. I truly did not wish to skew the social patterns.

John Murray 5th duke of Atholl (1778-1846)
Charles Sackville Germain 5th duke of Dorset (1767-1843)
George John Sackville 4th duke of Dorset (1793-1815)
[killed accidentally, fall from his horse while hunting; barely made
the "at least 21 years of age at death" cutoff]

William Herbert 3rd marquess of Powis (1698-1748)

Thomas Newport 4th earl of Bradford (c. 1696-1762)
[his older brother, the 3rd earl, was in a previous listing]
Charles Henry Coote 7th earl of Mountrath (c. 1725-1802)
Edward Digby 2nd earl Digby (1773-1856)
George Damer 2nd earl of Dorchester (1746-1808)
George Eden 1st earl of Auckland (1784-1849)
George Edward Herbert 2nd earl of Powis (1755-1801)
Benjamin O'Neale Stratford 6th earl Aldborough (1808-1875)
Henry George Bathurst 4th earl Bathurst (1790-1866)
William Lennox Bathurst 5th earl Bathurst (1791-1878)
James Tuchet 7th earl of Castlehaven (1723-1769)
Francis Henry Egerton 8th earl of Bridgewater (1756-1829)
John William Ward 1st earl of Dudley (1781-1833)
George Walpole 3rd earl of Orford (1730-1791)
William Hay 6th earl of Kinnoull (d. 1699, aged at least 32)
George William Hervey, 2nd earl of Bristol (1721-1775)

George Samuel Browne 8th viscount Montagu (1769-1793)
[died in Switzerland in a boating accident]
Henry Montagu Upton 2nd viscount Templetown (1799-1863)
Edward Wingfield 2nd viscount Powerscourt (1729-1764)

William Aston de jure 6th baron Aston of Forfar (1747-1769)
Charles Frederick Powlett 2nd baron Bayning (1785-1823)
William Noel-Hill, 3rd baron Berwick of Attingham (1772-1842)
Thomas Pitt 2nd baron Camelford (1775-1804) [killed in a duel]
John Rushout 2nd baron Northwick (1770-1859)
James Grenville 1st baron Glastonbury (1742-1825)
Edward Thurlow 1st baron Thurlow (1731-1806)
[he had a live-in mistress and three acknowledged illegitimate
daughters]
Henry Roper 12th baron Teynham (1764-1800)
Charles Dormer 9th baron Dormer (1753-1819)
William Ward 10th baron Dudley (c. 1685-1740)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group