Talk:Duke of Somerset

message: It is my duty to inform you that Edward Adolphus Ferdinand ST.
MAUR (1835-1869) did not fight in the American Civil War. In 
fact, he never set foot on American soil. He did fight in Italy 
and Sicily, as you rightly state, as a civilian volunteer, first 
joining Dictator General Garibaldi's Essercito Meridionale 
(Southern Army)as a raw private in 1860, distinguishing himself 
in the Volturno campaign in late 1860 and other famous campaigns,
having at an early stage assumed the rank of Captain that year
(only because he had co-commanded Volunteer Cavalry in England 
along with his younger brother Edward Percy ST. MAUR (1841-1865))
- both brothers assuming the rank of Captain. 
In Italy and Sicily,when Garibaldi conferred on E.A.F. ("Ferdy") 
St. Maur the rank of Captain (despite the fact that Ferdy was 
merely a civilian volunteer, Lord Seymour (not yet created Earl
St. Maur, until 1863 in his father's barony), also assumed the 
pseudonym 'Captain Richard Sarsfield' in commemoration of a hero
he had heard about when at Christ Church College(Oxford). Ferdy
had previously also fought as a Volunteer in the Persian War
(1855-56 - only partaking briefly in 1856), and almost immediately
afterwards, during the Relief of Lucknao (Indian [Sepoy]Mutiny 
1857-1858).
However, after a non-sexual scandal in Naples in late 1860, whereby 
Ferdy {now Garibaldi's appointed 'Military Secretary')accused a
brother officer (who happened to be a favourite of Garibaldi's) of 
embezzling Garibaldi funds, the said brother officer pamphleteered 
Lord Seymour relentlessly, challenged Ferdy to a duel that his 
superior officer (Col. J. Peard - Garibaldi's "Englishman") forbad
him to attend, and brought about a trial in Naples to further blacken
the SEYMOUR name, Ferdy felt it necessary to be accompanied at all 
times by bodyguards and to escape back to Britain - which he did. The
scandal induced Ferdy to give up any thought of involvement in warfare. 
He was never again to partake in warfare, choosing to travel
extensively throughout Europe, studying languages, seldom returning 
home, much to the resentment of his family.  
On the other hand, his younger brother Lord Edward Percy ST. MAUR who
was in H.M. Civil Service (and a promising young diplomat of 21) - to
whom I referred above - did go to America as a volunteer observer only
of the events of the Civil War (non-military sons of Dukes were always
allotted safe positions, i.e. they were not allowed to 'fight'). He 
extensively reported his findings in Blackwood's Magazine, a Scottish publication produced by a member of the Duchess of Somerset's family,
in an October issue of 1862. He had been in America between May and 
September of 1862, and returned to Britain via Canada. He did transit
about with McLellan's staff during that time and recalled seeing 
'Jeff Davis' at Richmond. Letters sent to his family also confirm this involvement, about which he also wrote to his brother Ferdy (soon to
become Earl St. Maur), who was still travelling throughout Europe, 
learning several foreign languages, and therefore, nowhere near America. See "LETTERS OF LORD ST. MAUR ["Ferdy"]AND LORD EDWARD ST. MAUR [Lord
"Edward Percy"] (1846-1869)", by Lady Helen Gwendolen RAMSDEN (née ST.
MAUR, wife of Sir John William RAMSDEN, 5TH Baronet Muncaster), London,
1888. 
So, it was, in fact Lord Edward Percy ST. MAUR (1841-1865), who
visited America, and not the Earl St. Maur (1835-1869). The younger
brother, incidentally, died and was buried in Yellapur (India) after
failing to survive the amputation of a leg, immediately after being 
mauled severely by one bear of two that he had shot unsuccessfully.
His brother the Earl composed a moving epitaph that was sculpted onto
the gravestone at Yellapur, shortly after the 24-year-old's death in 
1865.  
I hope you will not be offended by my updating you on the above. My 
intention is based on the pursuit of truth. 
Kindest regards
Joseph A A Silmon-Monerri - Edward Adolphus Ferdinand [the Earl] St.
Maur's biographer, author of two as yet unpublished works on this
Earl and the origins of the SEYMOURS.
I'm much indebted to you and your expert information. Please feel free update the main page to reflect the correct facts. Wikipedia thrives on experts reading pages and correcting them. One of the reasons I put in a reference to Earl St. Maur and the American Civil war was because of the information on this website http://rebelcherokee.tripod.com/stmaur.html. Mintguy 11:33, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What is the date and origin of the title of Baron Seymour supposedly possessed by the dukes of Somerset as a subsidiary title?  Leigh Rayment's page does not seem to list such a title as being still in existence.  Is it possible the eldest son of the duke simply uses the title "Baron Seymour," without that title actually existing?  If not, it would be good to document its origin and such. john k (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert but I think this relates to the discussion above. see Seymour Baronets & the Leigh Rayment page which gives 29 June 1611 & the statement ' He subsequently succeeded to the Dukedom  of Somerset (qv) in 1750 with which title the baronetcy remains merged' - but I bet I've got this wrong again.— Rod talk 19:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Rod has alerted me to this question. I'm not an expert either, but it seems pretty clear from that convoluted family tree I posted above that it was when Algernon Seymour, 7th Duke of Somerset died with no male heir that the Dukedom reverted to the other branch of the family: to Edward Seymour, 8th Duke of Somerset, who was the 6th Baronet. I assume that Dukes are more important than Barons, so the Baronetcy became the subsidiary title. Hope this helps, but since I know no more than this, please accept my apologies for not taking part further in this discussion.  —SMALLJIM  19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, not the baronetcy, which is obviously still held by the dukes, and came to them as you describe, but the title of Baron Seymour, which is used by the heir.  Is that an actual title held by the duke, or is it simply used by the heirs as a courtesy title without being a real substantive title of the dukes?  One of the peerage guides would probably be the source to look at for this. john k (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baron Seymour 

message: It seems to me that the image presented as the coat of arms is actually what amounts to a political cartoon of the actual arms. 70.74.188.103 (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean →this, yes, I've seen cartoons based on such depictions, but apparently some duke paid Charles Catton to paint this one. —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: Why are five of the title-holders listed in boldface? —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to have been attended to. --Wire723 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  We almost missed them