Talk:Charles Butler, 1st Earl of Arran

Attainder
When was it ruled that his brother's attainder applied only to the English titles? After Arran's death, I'd imagine? john k (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the question is one of realisation at all. Might it have more to do with political expediancy? I could imagine the family knowing the legal situation but also knowing that the political realities would have precluded a pressing of the demand. George I, nervous of his position could easily have forced the Irish parliament to attaint the Irish titles as well had the matter been pressed. Best to let things calm down for a bit, eh? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but my recollection of Complete Peerage is that everybody thought at the time that the Westminster attainder was good enough to do in all the titles. Arran never showed any awareness that he was or might be de jure duke of Ormonde.  Looking at Earl of Ormond (Ireland) and John Butler, 17th Earl of Ormonde, it appears that the Irish titles' continuation was not recognized until 1791, when it was given to a rather distant relation - the 17th earl was descended from a brother of the first duke (Arran's father).  So that answers my question - perhaps we should add that to the article?  As to whether it was a realization, I don't know - one would probably have to look at the Irish House of Lords debates that let to the admittance of the 17th Earl. john k (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's what Complete Peerage has to say on the subject. Regarding the 2nd Duke:"He was attainted 20 Aug. 1715 by the British Parl., whereby all his English and Scottish honours and estates were forfeited (c); and it was erroneously assumed [an assumption corrected in 1791] that the Irish Act of 20 June 1716 forfeiting his estates deprived him of his Irish dignities also.(d) (c) Lords' Journal, vol. xx, pp. 155-57, 176. The statement ante, vol. i, sub Arran, that the Barony of Dingwall [S.] was not forfeited is incorrect. (d) He was not attainted by the Irish Parl., but the regalities in co. Tipperary of 'James Butler, now or lately called or known by the name of James Duke of Ormond' were extinguished by the Irish Act and his estates vested in the King (Statutes at Large [I.], vol. iv, p. 327)."

Regarding Arran: "In 1721 he was empowered by Act of Parl. to buy the estates forfeited in 1715 by his brother, the 2nd Duke of Ormonde. On that Duke's death in 1745, Charles, but for the attainder, would have suc. to all his honours except the Barony of Dingwall [S.] and the Barony of Butler of oore Park, both of which would have devolved on him on the death of his niece, Lady Elizabeth Butler, in 1750...He d. s.p., 17 Dec. 1758, aged 87. At his death all the peerages conferred on him became extinct, as did also the Dukedom and Marquessate of Ormonde [I.].  If they had not already been extinguished by attainder the English Dukedom of Ormonde, Earldom of Brecknock and Barony of Butler of Lanthony [E.] conferred on his grandfather would also have become extinct, while the Barony of Butler of Moore Park would have fallen into abeyance between his only surv. sister and the representatives of another sister, and the Barony of Dingwall [S.] would have devolved on the former, the Earldoms of Ormond and Ossory and the Viscountcy of Thurles [I.] devolving de jure on the heir male"

The next two earls, marked XV. and XVI., are described only as de jure earls. Of XV.: "In 1758 he suc. de jure to, but did not assume, the family honours; and in 1760 he suc.'' to the estates [on the death of the Earl of Arran's sister, 'a young heiress of ninety-nine,'-JK]."

Of XVI: "In 1766 he suc. to the family estates and de jure to the honours, which he did not assume."

It was XVII who took up the title again: "M.P. [I.] for Gowran, 1776-83, and for Kilkenny city, 1783-91, when his right to the peerages was admitted by the House of Lords [I.].(a) (a)Lords' Journal [I.], vol. ii, p. 543; vol. vi, p. 421 et seq."

That, sadly, is all Cokayne has on the matter. The restoration of the estates in his brother's lifetime, however, suggests that Arran probably would not have had too much trouble getting back the titles after his brother's death, had he thought to do so. Obviously Ormonde himself, being attainted, could not have done so before 1745, but I'd guess his brother might have done so afterwards. It'd require looking at the Lords' Journal [I.], I guess, to really know any more detail. john k (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)