Talk:Duke of Somerset

Untitled

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)

Conflicting information

There appears to be a conflict in the information provided on Duke of Somerset and Berry Pomeroy Castle particularly in relation to titles and dates around the time of the English Civil War. If anyone has reliable sources which can help to resolve this it would be really useful.— Rod ^talk 20:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rod, I suspect this is connected to the fact that Protector Somerset married twice and had (at least) two sons named Edward. From his first marriage to Katherine Fillol came Edward Lord Seymour of Berry Pomeroy (d. 1593); from his second marriage to Anne Stanhope came Edward, 1st Earl of Hertford (d. 1621).

Each of these had sons named Edward too: Edward 1st bart of Berry Pomeroy (d. 1613) and Edward Lord Beauchamp (d. 1612).

And in the next generation: Edward 2nd bart of Berry Pomeroy (d. 1659) and Edward Lord Beauchamp (d. 1618), and his brothers William, 2nd Duke of Somerset (d. 1660) and Francis (d. 1664).

Then we have Edward 3rd bart of Berry Pomeroy (d. 1688) on one branch and the sons of William: Henry Lord Beauchamp (d. 1654) and his son William, 3rd Duke of Somerset (d. 1671) and Henry's brother, John, 4th Duke (d. 1675) etc. on the other

Finally there's Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Baronet (d. 1708) who moved from Berry Pomeroy to Maiden Bradley and his son Edward, 5th bart (d. 1740) vs. Francis, 5th Duke (d. 1678), Charles, 6th Duke (d. 1748) (who were grandsons of Francis (d.1664)) and Charles' son Algernon, 7th Duke (d. 1750) who left no male heir so the Dukedom reverted to the senior branch with, yes, another Edward Seymour, 8th Duke (d. 1757) who was the son of Edward 5th bart.

Confusing or what! I'm pretty sure this is all correct though—the info is from a family tree on p208 of Berry Pomeroy Castle, Devon Archaeological Society, Proceedings No. 54, 1996. ISSN 0305-5795. Two sentences in this article appear to be wrong and I've taken the liberty of removing them. I think this resolves the issue, but do let me know if I've missed the point of your query.  —SMALLJIM  22:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I'm getting my head around this - the Berry Pomeroy Castle Seymour baronets (3rd & 4th etc) were different to the Duke of Somerset Seymour Dukes? If so then it was my error trying to add bits about the English Civil War and moving from Berry Pomeroy to Maiden Bradley & thanks for removing them. In my (very) non expert mind it would be nice to have a bit about where the seat of the Dukes was, what they did in the civil war etc to "liven" up the details of succession etc. I will remove the "conflicting info" tags and leave it to your expertise - particularly if you/others can add more inline citations (which is the reasons I arrived at these articles in the first place because I was working my way through Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing.) Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 08:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, there were two separate lines (and the family tree shows that up to 1757 twelve of them were called Edward). My interest was originally with the castle rather than its inhabitants, but you know how these things expand… I was going to create articles for the Seymour Baronets of Berry Pomeroy, but never got round to it, and then someone removed the redlinks. Well, you've rekindled my interest, so I might have another go. My interests remain with Devon, but if I turn up more info about the Somerset dukes, I'll add it. You're right about the inline citations, of course – I wrote most of Berry Pomeroy Castle as an early exercise in article writing, before I was aware of the need for them. Time for some rework there too.  —SMALLJIM  08:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Baron Seymour

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)

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)

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)

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)

Coat of arms

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)

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)

We almost missed them

Why are five of the title-holders listed in boldface? —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This appears to have been attended to. --Wire723 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)