Talk:Lord Great Chamberlain

message: I've just updated the tables to reflect the facts that:
# Julian Palmer died in 2002 and his share passed to his only son Nicholas
# Bryan Ronald Basset is the elder son of Lady Elizabeth Basset
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Keeping page updated 

message: 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)
thread_title: Thomas Cromwell?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lorraine Wilson? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "or representative" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  A question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sword of state 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1540-1553 

message: It seems that Bryan Basset has died 2010:  Could someone please update the article? --Intimidator (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank You! --Intimidator (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryan Basset 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Opera hat (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: David Basset

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chart 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Llewellen Palmer