Talk:Viscount Simon

Claification

He's an elected hereditary peer? Is that right? Seems a contradiction to me. 37.152.207.18 (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Abolitionist?
The article says that Simon's wife Kathleen "was an abolitionist", without further explanation. Given that she was presumably born long after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and in the United States, what does this refer to? Of what did she advocate the abolition? J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 18:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * With apologies to The Traditionalist for not doing this before I reverted her or his edit (or before I added the "vague" tag, back in 2014), I looked at the article on Lady Simon, and found the clarification I had called for here, as well as citations to authority. I have not checked those cites myself, but, presuming their accuracy, I've borrowed them for this article.


 * Note that the web site, "The Peerage" makes no mention of Kathleen Simon, presumably because she was Viscount Simon's second wife, and bore him no children. The only wife "The Peerage" acknowledges for him is Ethel Mary Venables (d. 1902).  That site, though possibly the best source available on the web, does not appear to me to be a reliable source, so I haven't modified this article or Kathleen Simon's article on that basis.  Somebody with access to a copy of Burke's Peerage, or other reliable authority, should make appropriate revisions here.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I clicked save at your talk page before seeing this. I suppose that there is no problem between us!--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Behold how good and pleasant it is, etc. These are the perils of instantaneous communication. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 18:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 


 * Curiouser and curiouser! One would think that "Viscount Simon" (who married Kathleen Harvey) and "John Allsebrook Simon, 1st Viscount Simon" (who married Ethel Mary Venables) were two different people, though our article seems to regard them as one.  Who can fathom this mystery?  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 18:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is just a mistake of the website (they created two entries for the same subject, happens here all the time). It is obviously the same person as there was only one Viscount Simon who was Lord Chancellor. Besides that, the National Portrait Gallery thinks so. And her word is oak.--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Heirs Apparent and Presumptive
An heir apparent is one who will inherit if living when the present holder (of a peerage, title, estate, etc.) dies. An heir presumptive is one who will inherit on the death of the present holder, unless an heir apparent, or another heir presumptive with a better claim, is born.

Most English peerages are heritable only by the male heir of the peer's body, legally begotten: i.e., his or her eldest living legitimate son. That means there can't be an heir presumptive to most peerages, and if the peer dies without a legitimate son, the peerage is extinguished. If the peerage is heritable by special remainder, then the daughters, brothers, nephews, or cousins of the peer may be heirs presumptive.

It's worth mentioning that there is no heir apparent to the Viscount Simon's title because there might be one. (Although that statement, at the moment, like the rest of the article, is unsupported by reference to any source.) If there is authority for asserting that the Letters Patent creating the Viscount Simon's peerage provide for inheritance of his title by special remainder, and that the current holder of that title has no relation who (in the absence of a legitimate son) will inherit the title at his death, then it may be worth mentioning, with that explanation, that the current Viscount Simon has no heir presumptive. Otherwise, it makes no more sense to mention that than to observe that he does not own an otter. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 21:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First I would like to say that I know what are heir apparent and presumptive. Most hereditary peerages (like this one) are inheritable by the male heirs of the 1st peer's body, not just by the current peer's possible sons. If the 3rd Viscount Simon had a brother, he would be the heir presumptive in the current situation. It's fact that the present holder has not an heir apparent or heir presumptive. (You can check the 1st Viscount's male-line descendants on http://www.thepeerage.com/p27707.htm#i277062.) It's insufficient to say just that there isn't an heir apparent, because an heir presumptive (e.g. brother, uncle or male-line first cousin) would be eligible to inherit too. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just in case anybody besides me and Editor FIN cares, I found the latter's argument regarding heirs of the first peer's body persuasive, and a point I hadn't thought of, though a moment's reflection should have given it to me. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 17:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)