Genealogy Chat

I almost have all the proof I need to show that my family should have inherited a Baronial title and the estates that went with it but were overlooked in 1840. DOes anyone know what happens about things like this?

I think it very unlikely you would have been overlooked. No idea what you do next. Is there a present holder of the title?

You could try the College of Heralds (Google it) It depends which Herald is on duty.and they may be abe to answer this as a general question . Anything else such as a search is very,very expensive. Try your local History society to see if they know anyone interested in Heraldry as those people often have access to the College.. Google for Heraldic Societies as they may be able to help Regards Jay

there is a present holder. In 188 the direct line came to an end because they thought that someone who died at sea had not had children but , in fact, he had a son and my family are descended from him. It's taken me two years to get the proof together and I am almost there now. I've done it for fun more than anything else but now that I'm almost there it has me thinking

It would be a very expensive legal battle I should think. Is there anywhere you could get free legal advice? Check your household insurance to see if you have legal cover as an add on- been a blessing to us in our current neighbour from hell struggle.

Jennifer It's amazing what you can find when you google: www.baronetage.org/unproven.htm 'THE OFFICIAL ROLL It is a popular misconception that the heir apparent succeeds automatically to a baronetcy on the death of the current holder. Nothing could be further from the truth. By a Royal Warrant of King Edward VII dated 8th February 1910 an Official Roll was established to be kept at the Home Office. It was further stated 'that no person whose name is not entered on the Official Roll of Baronets shall be received as a Baronet, or shall be addressed or mentioned by that title in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent or other official document.' REGISTRAR OF THE BARONETAGE In a further Warrant of King George V dated 10th March 1922 the Home Secretary is required to appoint a senior official as Registrar of the Baronetage charged with the duty of keeping the Roll and making all necessary entries and deletions. In 2001 under the Machinery of Government changes the Registrar of the Baronetage and staff were transferred from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department. In 2003 this has now been re-named as the Department of Constitutional Affairs. PROCEDURE In order that claims to Baronetcies can be properly and fairly assessed high standards of evidence are required. The procedure is that the Registrar of the Baronetage first assesses the claim, then it and the supporting evidence are referred to Garter King of Arms, except in the case of Baronetcies which have a Scottish territorial designation which go to Lord Lyon King of Arms. A final decision is taken by the Registrar following the report by the King of Arms. The evidence required varies according to the relationship of the claimant to the dead baronet. As a minimum the birth certificate of the claimant, the marriage certificate of the claimant's parents and the death certificate of the dead baronet together with two Statutory Declarations will be required. For collateral successions evidence will be required to establish that the claimant is descended in the male line from the first Baronet and that all male lines of descent from the first Baronet senior to that of the claimant are extinct. In the case of certain Scottish baronetcies descent may include the female line. INFORMATION Any person wishing to prove succession to a baronetcy is advised, as a first step, to get in touch with: The Assistant Registrar of the Baronetage Department of Constitutional Affairs 6th Floor, Selborne House 54-60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW e-mail: steven.johnson[ATSign]dca.gsi.gov.uk Fax : 020-7210-8948 Independent advice or assistance in the preparation of a claim may be obtained from: Commander Perry Abbott OBE RN(Retd) Secretary, Standing Council of the Baronetage Forestside Martin's Corner Hambledon PO7 4RA e-mail: secretary[ATSIGN]baronetage.org Tele & Fax: 02392-632672 nell

Thanks very much for that Helen! I'm not quite ready and it will be very hard to prove because it all happened pre registration and certificates time but the parish registers all seem to be there except one crucial one that I am hunting for. It is such a romantic story and I have had such fun discovering it all! I still need to prove that Hugh Munro who died at St Botolph's without Aldgate in 1808 was the son of Thomas Munro , son of John Munro of Culcairn

There was an interesting programme some months (or so!) back when someone was researching just who should have been king when Edward III (? or IV) took the crown. There was very powerful evidence that our rightful (by primogeniture - or even actual parentage!) monarch lives in suburban Australia! The general view was that time had somewhat overtaken the claim - we're talking C15 or even C14 (would have to go and look it up and I don't feel like that when I've just got in from work and am enjoying a nice cup of tea with some bread and home-made jam! Christine

My claim - if you could call it that - relates to an entail that was written by SIr Harry Munro bart. in 1776. He stated that his children should inherit and , if they failed (as they did in 1848) the children of his cousin John Munro of Cuclairn should inherit next. After that came the children of George Munro of Culrain. It was assumed that John Munro's line failed because his second son, Thomas, went to sea and died there. However, he married Elizabeth in London and had a son , Hugh in 1760 or thereabouts and only died in 1787. I think Sir Harry may not have known this at the time. My family are descended from that Hugh and people on this site have helped me to find all that information. It was Lyla who sent me to the Guildhall LIbrary to find Hugh's sons birth - John Thomas and I learnt today that Hugh was buried at St Botolph's in 1808. I'm hoping the record of his burial may say who his father was.

Christine A lot of possible claimants to the English throne are debarred because they are Catholics. nell

Jennifer, If you feel up to it, this is the kind of thing that the BBC's Family Ties might like to look into .... hmmm! Jane

Christine While you are stuffing your face with bread and jam - I too saw that programme. It was much earlier than the 15thc, it was about 1200 I think, and centred round the illegitimate child of the Queen, born secretly and baptised in Rheims Cathedral, with cloak and dagger stuff. Quite rightly, the question is asked: Why would the royal son of a Queen be baptised in great secrecy - you would expect there to have been universal rejoicing. Answer; Hubby had been away at the Wars for 13 months! This child is widely thought to have been the result of the Queen's liaison with 'John the Archer', an extremely tall, blonde man. The child grew up to be extremely tall and blonde, all her other children were short, dark and squat, like the king. (Surely it wasnt Eleanor of Aquitaine??? Cannot bring another naughty Queen to mind off hand) Olde Crone

Watch it, Crone. Eleanor happens to be an ancestor of mine (and so far as I can judge probably of at least 10% of those reading these boards) I once met an Australian cousin who was convinced that he was entitled to be a Baronet (the title was declared extinct in 1677). He fought a bitter and unavailing war against the College of Heralds and I regret to say that I distanced myself from him.

Whilst I idlely (?) imagined us lot going on a coach trip to your Seat and being given VIP treatment on the lawn - the thought crossed my mind, have you checked up on this family now days. I mean, you know the old saying, 'Be careful what you wish for'? Well say this lot are up to their eyes in debt and death duties or druggie descendants (like so many aristos seem to be lately). They may leap at the chance of shoving the lot on to a claimant!!?