Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 1.djvu/86

 64 ALBEMARLE. Robes. (") He attended the King in his several campaigns anil (having been in 1092 admitted into the Knighthood of Zutpheu and, subsequently, int.) that of Holland and West Frieslaud) was on 10 Feb. 1696-7, cr. BAKON ASH FORD, of Ashfonl, co. Kent ; VISCOUNT BUKY, co. ban. aster ; and FA Kb OF ALBFMAHbK. ('■) Major- Gen. 1097. Col. of 1st troop of Horse Guards, 11398. KG., 14 .May 1700. Having just returned from a special embassy to the Hague, he was present at the death of 1721. James Grant, of Grant cr. a Baron.* „ Slit Pkteh Redmond cr. u Baron.* He had been cr. a Hart, also by the titular James III, in 1717. 1727. Sin Toby Boukke cr. a Baron.* „ Richard Butler, " Esq.," cr. a Baron.* 1727. Brigadier [—1 Crone, Governor of Lerida, cr, a Baron.* 174:1. Duuald STEWART, of Appin. cr. a Baron.* 1760. Silt John Gr.kue, cr. BARON ALFORD. He had been cr. a Bart, also by the titular James III, in 1726. „ July 14. Laurence Oui-hast, of Cask, cr. a Baron.* After the death of the titular James III (1 Jan. 1766) his s. and h., " Prince Charles Edward" (titular Charles III), assumed for himself the title of Earl or Albany (Comtc d' AJianit), and is said, shortly before his death Jan. 17SS), to have cr. his illcgit. da. Charlotte, a Countess, as Countess ok Albany. It is not known that he conferred any other titles, neither are any supposed to have been conferred by his br. and h., " Cardinal York" (titular Henry IX), on whose death, 18 July 1SU7, the legitimate issue of James II became ex. Note. — In N. and Q.," 3rd s., ix, 71, there is a notice signed " B. B. Woodward" (the well known Librarian at Windsor Castle) concerning the whereabouts of the records of many Jacobite titles of honour, and a list of Peerages, Baronetages, K.G.'s, and K.T.'s, so cr., is given. See also Oliphant's " Jacobite Lairds of Cask." (") " Keppel had a sweet and obliging temper, winning manners and a quick, though not a profound, understanding. Courage, loyalty and secrecy were common between him and Portland. In other points they differed widely. . . . Keppel had a great desire to please, and looked up with unfeigned admiration to a master whom he had been accustomed, ever since he could remember, to consider as the tirst of living men. ... So early as the spring of 1691, shrewd observers were struck by the manner in which Keppel watched every turn of the lving's eye, and anticipated the King's unuttered wishes. Gradually the new servant rose into favour. . . . But hia elevation, though it furnished the Jacobites with afresh topic for calumny and ribaldry, was not so offensive to the nation as the elevation of Portland had been. . . . Envy was disarmed by the blanduess of Albemarle's temper. Portland, though strictly honest, was covetous : Albemarle was generous. Portland had been naturalized here only in name and form ; but Albemarle affected to have forgotten his own country and to have become an Englishman in feelings and manners. . . . The wealth which he owed to the Royal bounty was a pittance when compared with the domains and hoards of Portland ; yet Portland thought himself aggrieved." See Mncaulay's " History of England," where also it is mentioned that of nearly three-quarters of the 170,000 acres that had been forfeited in Ireland, " though a small part had been bestowed oil men whose services to the state well deserved a much larger recompeuce " (<'.</.. the Earl of Athlone and the Earl of Galway), the rest had been given to " the King's jurmiml friends. Romney had obtained a considerable share of the Royal Bounty. But of all the grants the largest was to Woodstock, the eldest s. of Portland ; the next was to Albemarle. An admirer of William cannot relate without pain that he divided between these two foreigners an extent of country larger than Hertfordshire." ( b ) The late Lord Braybrooke (1825-58) states [erroneously] that he was cr. " Ear! of Albemarle in Normandy," adding, " the title having been doubtless selected ns one so frequently enjoyed by persons of the highest consideration, and not in any way resting upon an hereditary claim." See " N. & Q." 1st S. ii, 466. Doubtless this WM the case, though why Van Keppel was entitled to the highest consideration in England, does not so clearly appear. The case was different (as regards merit) with Gen. Moiick, and (as regards pre-eminence) with all the previous holders. The Grantee is in the patent styled " Arnoldus Justus de Keppel," but in the docquet "Arnold Joost van Keppel." The name of the title unknown.