THE KENNEDY "ALMANACH DE GOTHA" VOLUME II

  by Guy Stair Sainty, April 2001

Once again this publication has taken aim at being a comprehensive guide, and missed by a mile. The plump mustard colored volume purports to catalogue the genealogies of the Non-Sovereign Princely and Ducal House of Europe, attempting to be the successor to the original Almanach de Gotha that was last issued in 1944. In following the format of the original publication, including a selection of European Princely and Ducal families, the result is neither comprehensive nor, in individual cases, accurate. Those anxious for this information and who do not have access to other, superior sources, may find it useful, but will soon wonder at both the lacunae and some of the inclusions. If they have any expectation of finding therein accurate or comprehensive information, then they will be sadly disappointed. Here, however, they may find the dead are living and the living dead, the extinct are flourishing and the extant extinguished. 

The responsibility for this pitiful effort must be laid firstly at the door of the Editor (wherever this may be found – the address given as that of the publication is an accommodation address in Cork Street). The astonishing series of factual, historical, spelling, and grammatical mistakes is so extensive as to make one wonder whether the editor read any portion of the publication before it went to press. Mr Kennedy’s past careers as failed Conservative Parliamentary candidate, briefly private secretary to Prince Michael of Kent, assistant in the office of a Conservative member of Parliament, sometime “fiancé” (by his own claims) of a Princess of Yugoslavia (and now, on his web site, to have been her 'former partner') and, according to reports in the British press, alleged agent of the Bosnian Serbs, were perhaps poor preparation for his latest adventure as publisher of the Gotha. His unfortunate partiality for litigation, or threats thereof, has not however enabled him to master the spelling of the word Solicitor, which, throughout this publication is given with two “l”s. While he has also added an unnecessary “t” to literature (he spells it litterature) he apparently believes that the double “d” should be omitted from the word “addressed,” which is written throughout as “adressed”. 

The Research Committee is headed by a Mr Ghislain Crassard (a gentleman who, in the letters to families he wished to include, described himself as “of the Marquesses of Limesy”[1]), who is not known to have had anything published previously on the European nobility. Among those whose avowed expertise is known, only those of M. Jacques Ferrand (on Russian families) and Pier-Felice degli Uberti (on Italian) are names that carry any weight as authorities. While some individuals are listed on this committee with connections to the world of nobility or royalty, only Ferrand and Uberti are known for any expertise in this area. Do the worthy committee members realize how foolish they look by the attachment of their names to this disaster? The lack of care over the minutiae of detailed information, so essential in such a publication, is manifested in the failure to even spell the names correctly of some of the members of this committee. 

The only family histories and genealogies in this publication that have any claim to be of use are those dealing with Russian, and to a much lesser extent, Polish families (with, nonetheless, some egregious errors). Mr Ferrand’s expertise and scholarship in the field of genealogy is well known and it can only be regretted that the lack of reliable information elsewhere might, for some, put the quality of his work in doubt. Unfortunately the generally high standard of entries on the Russian families did not extend to the Beauharnais-Leuchtenberg history – but perhaps the incompetent charged with responsibility for French families was responsible for this entry. 

The haphazard listing of families is bizarre; as in the pre-1944 Gotha the names of those families included in previous years are listed between the complete (sic) entries on families dealt with in this volume. Yet so many of the families dealt with previously are omitted, even from the single word listing, that one might wonder why any were given at all – particularly when the reader is referred back to the 1930s for some of the great British Ducal families, including several that have been long extinct, such as Buckingham and Chandos, Leeds, and more recently, Newcastle, whose extinction is not even noted. Strangely, the title of Duke of Windsor is listed, and with the notation that it is extinct – but this title should only have ever appeared under Part One, United Kingdom. In the case of British Ducal houses, the editor has given a brief paragraph in which he tries rather awkwardly to explain British courtesy titles.  This reads: the “head of the family, his spouse and the surviving spouse of deceased heads of the family bear the style Duke and duchess with the qualification His or Her Grace; widows with addition of dowager; sons and daughters of dukes bear the title of Lord of Lady, while the eldest son of the living Duke is” the courtesy title in that case. This labored explanation, however, is thoroughly misleading – if the Dukedom of Queensberry were to pass from the Buccleuch family to a female (as is possible under the original patent of creation), would a future Duchess’s spouse also be a Duchess? Furthermore, it is wrong to state that the sons of a Duke bear the title “Lord”; this style is only accorded to Dukes and Marquesses younger sons. Hence, Gotha Committee Member the Duke of Somerset’s eldest son is not “Lord Sebastian Edward, Lord Seymour” as described in this publication. 

Among the missing families are the English Ducal Houses of Beaufort and Norfolk, which, unlike, the Dukes of Bedford, Hamilton, Leinster, Manchester, Marlborough, and Westminster, do not even merit the one word listing of their titles. Why two such illustrious houses should be entirely ignored, when there is ample information in the sources from which the published information has already been largely plagiarized (in the case of the UK the far superior Burke’s Peerage of 1999, and Debrett’s Peerage), is extraordinary. Why this volume includes the title of Duke of Abrantès, whose last holder died in 1982, the Barbiano family and Demidoff families, whose Princely lines are long extinct, while ignoring such prominent British families is also a puzzle. Why are the female line successors of such ancient families as Ottoboni, whose heir is Marquess Domenico Serlupi Crescenzi (and whose title of Gran Conservatore of the Order of St Stephen of Tuscany is translated as “Grand Keeper”), among those whose families are included, when so many other families with plentiful male heirs are not? The Serlupi are an eminent Roman noble family but not of Princely or Ducal rank. 

The entire corpus of Spanish and Portuguese Ducal families is omitted, and even those Spanish families that appeared in earlier editions of the Gotha are not listed here by family name or title. When the editor has had the opportunity of including such a family – as in the case of FitzJames - he has chosen to include the French Ducal branch, extinct in the male line since 1967, rather than the extant Spanish branch of Dukes of Alba, Peñaranda de Duero, and Berwick. Had he included the latter, he could have taken the opportunity to note that the Dukedom of Berwick is still held by the head of the FitzJames family, a fact ignored by Burke’s and Debrett’s, as the title was never attainted, as is sometimes claimed. 

Reading the histories of some of these families can make for tiring work. One may read under Aldobrandini, that “Prince Paolo [Borghese] (who died 1646), m 1638 Olympia Aldobrandini (who died 1681) last and heir of the Aldobrandini House. Their son Gianbattista Borghese (1639-1717), was created Marquess of Monticelli 1678, by Pope Innocent XI, and bought 1681 the Rossano Principality, hereditary primogeniture, from the Aldobrandini House, because of his mothers death.” How many mothers did he have? And how was he able to buy this Principality from the Aldobrandini house when the family was extinct? It is possible to render an interpretation of what the author of this clumsy and ungrammatical passage is hoping to convey, but surely an editor’s job is to edit! Did the editor use some kind of mechanized translator or is this just the product of an inadequate education? Surely a better word could have been found than “authored,” scattered through several different family histories, when describing the foundation of different branches of a family or the progenitors of a particular line? 

Under Avalos, Spanish gets a small “s” while “Italian” is capitalized. Repeatedly one finds that French is written with either an upper or lower case “f”, with no particular regard to any clear rule. The same confusion can be found elsewhere in the case of “Austrian”, “Bohemian” and “Italian.” Irritatingly, the author often feels compelled to use two digits for dates, when one only is necessary (i.e. 02 June 1451 for the date of creation of the title of Count of Monteodorisio, for Inigo Avalos, for example). The present head of this family, we are told, Francesco d’Avalos d’Aquino d’Aragona, 12^th Prince of Pescara, etc, is described as a “Knight of Imperial Royal Order of Saint January” (presumably the Insigne Real Ordine di San Gennaro, more usually translated as the Illustrious Royal Order of Saint Januarius). Elsewhere, however, there are others who are described properly as being Knights of the Illustrious Royal Order of Saint Januarius. Yet why is this full name used when members of the “Illustrious Order of the Golden Fleece” are referred to simple as Knights of the Golden Fleece? Why are some Knights of the Garter described as such, while others are listed as “KG”. If the qualification “Illustrious” is to be used for the Order of Saint Januarius, why not “Most Noble” for that of the Garter? 

Why should non-British readers be required to know what the initials KG, KCVO, or KBE refer to, with no glossary provided to explain what these initials mean? When the text describes Philipine Marie Cécile de Noailles as “Legion of Honour, LB, KCVO, KBE”, what does the author intend to convey about this distinguished lady – that perhaps she has undergone a gender change? Her husband, the 12^th Prince of Ligne, is described as a “Grand of Spain” and a “KMC” but this critic, for one, has no idea what these letters stand for; the Prince would certainly have been surprised to discover his wife’s name among the Knights of the Royal Victorian Order. Why does the George (as in Constantinian Order of) have an “s” on the end, as if it is French, and why is Lazzaro (as in SS. Maurizio e Lazzaro), translated as “Lazzarus”, instead of Lazarus? Surely the editor is familiar with these rather unexceptional names? Why is the Association d’entraidede la noblesse française, always referred to in France as the ANF, given here as the FNA – without a glossary the reader might imagine this is some organization of freedom fighters? At the back of the book there is a list of "Abbriviations" (sic), but these include only the explanation for the single "b (Born), m, (Married), m, diss by div (Divorced), k, (Killed) 1stly (firstly) 2ndly (Secondly etc)" - hopefully readers will not be confused by the arbitrary use, and then disuse, of the comma. When using the book, however, these abbreviations become confusing when one reads of "Carl Ernst Johann, 1stly Prince of Weikersheim", for example. What, one might wonder, did he become later?

We learn that Prince PierreTroubetskoy (1858-1911) was “Master of the Hunting”; that the 5^th Prince of Thun und Hohenstein is “Grand Cross ad honorem St Georges Order of Bayern”; that Don Giuliano Centurione Scotto was a “Fregate Captain”; that numerous Frenchmen are “Cincinnatus”, while a handful are “Cincinnatus Society”, that the Duke of Magenta, also a Cincinnatus, is an “Airborne Colonel”, and that the Mérode family are a “Feudal House from the Archbishophood of Cologne.” But why is it necessary to state that the present Duke of Gramont is “not m to date”? The late Count Paul Alexander v.  Munster v. Derneburg family is described as “proprietor of The Manor House, Brampton, Oxon, Lieutenant Prussian Army” – may we suppose he greeted visitors at the bar wearing his helmet? Gersende, Countess of Quatrebarbes (under Sabran) is listed as “consellor, FNA.” Prince Ladislao Odescalchi is described as “Conscribed Roman Noble” while elsewhere others with the same rank are listed merely as “Coscritto” – one wonders whether the editor is actually familiar with the meaning of this rank. In describing Prince Henri de Polignac’s job the author writes that he is “Liversan Saint Sauveur administrator”, but what does this tell the reader? 

While it is reassuring to learn that so many representatives of the ancient aristocracy are gainfully employed, to discover that there are among them “company directors”, “business administrators”, “industry businessmen”, “commercial directors” etc, is surely redundant. One is happy to learn that two Princes of the Alliata di Villafranca family are staunch Rotarians, as well as Knights of the Constantinian Order of St George(s) (sic) and Saint Januarius. An Alliata cousin is described, with an irritating capitalization of the definite article (but unique to this member of the family, for some reason), as "Prince of The Holy Roman Empire, of the Princes of Montereale and of Villafranca, MP, President of Mediterranean Sea Academy, Artillery Captain, Military Value Cross, Merit Order, Dr in Law, Grand Officer Order of The Christ (Portugal), Member Isabelle The Catholic Order, other decorations". Since when have Italian Deputies or Senators used the initials MP to denote their position? In what class is this gentleman a "Member" of the Order of Isabel the Catholic (not "Isabelle The Catholic Order")?  When a really interesting job might be noted, however, the editors are apparently oblivious to its existence – would it not have been worth stating that Prince John Shalikachvili (born 1936) was until recently chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the most senior US military officer after the President? The Kennedy Gotha does not even note that he held military rank! 

Why in translating military ranks and honors is there so often no attempt at rendering them into comprehensible English? Count Agostino Giorgio Borromeo, for example (see under Angera), is described as “Artillery Deputy Lieutenant” and “member of the Grand Magistere of the Holy Sepulcher Order of Jerusalem”. He did his national service as a 2^nd Lieutenant in the Artillery, and is a member of the Grand Magistery of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem – surely the editors are not entirely unfamiliar with military ranks and the names and designations of Orders of Chivalry? In any case, his friends and family know him as Agostino, not by his second name of Giorgio. In checking the Italian family histories I was unable to find one that did not include grammatical errors so egregious as to render the text almost incomprehensible. 

There are also notable lacunae in the histories of individual families. Why is no explanation given that the widow of the last male of that ancient House adopted the present line of Princes Giovanelli at the end of the nineteenth century? A similar omission is made in the case of Poniatowski, where there is no explanation that the present family descends from the illegitimate issue of the last Polish King. Under Gonzaga we are told that in “1819, when Luigi, Prince of Castiglione, last of his branch died, a family convention was signed with Marie Therese, Empress of Austria”. To whom is the author referring? Empress Marie Therese had died forty-nine years earlier, yet it could not have been a mistake with the century, as in 1719 she was two years old at the time and her father was still Emperor. There is much more to be written of the Gonzaga family than is given, including their plausible claim to the title of Marquess of Mantua (not Mantoa as it is spelled here).  

Over and over again one reads about individuals having received the “Military Value Cross.” Whatever is this strange award? Surely the editors cannot be ignorant of the alternative meanings of the French word valeur? Did it not occur to the editors that when describing a military award the correct translation is “valor”. Elsewhere we find knights “of the Saint Gregorius Order,” but not consistently – the late Prince Camillo Rospigliosi is described as “Knight Supreme Order of The (sic) Christ, Grand Cross St Gregory The Great Order”. The rank of individual knights of Malta is often given, but some are listed simply as Knight or Grand Cross without designating in which class or division they are enrolled. Most are understandable Knights of Honor and Devotion (the editor preferring the English spelling of Honour / Honor, but the American for that of Sepulcher), but when they have been promoted to higher ranks this is often ignored, as are many who are listed as Knights of the Constantinian Order but are actually Grand Crosses. The Prince of Stigliano is described as “Comp. St Maurice and Lazzarus Order”, Prince Guasco Gallarati as “Grand Cross St Sylvestre Order”, and Friedrich, Count of Hardenberg, is given the exceptional rank of “Knight of Honour and Devotion Johanniter Order”. Prince Louis de Polignac is described as a Knight of Justice SMOM, but he has not taken the monastic vows which membership of that class demands, even though (like a number of others listed in this work) his marriage was “annulated” at Rome in 1958. Don Diego Vargas Machuca is apparently a “Knight of Isabel Order” - is this the Spanish Order of Isabel the Catholic, or the Portuguese Order of St Isabel (usually reserved exclusively for ladies)? 

Another annoyance is the inconsistency of giving dates of creation; in some cases the full date is given, in others just the year, even for relatively recent creations. In the cases of some French titles the crucial date of registration of the ancient peerage is never given, although without registration the peerage could not have been hereditary. With restoration titles the date of the establishment of the majorat, an essential step in making the peerage hereditary, is also omitted. The abominable English is as common a feature of the French entries as it is of the Italian – we are told, for example, under Audiffret-Pasquier, that “this last title was granted with ability to reverse it on to Gaston, Duke of Audiffret”. One can only hope that he had good insurance. In describing the histories of French families the ignorance of the author is palpable – why for example, under Praslin, is it necessary to state “Constitutional Peer 05 April 1845”, a meaningless description for this particular life appointment? Why translate the title of Premier Duke and Peer of France (Uzès) as “First Duke and Peer”? 

One reads frequently of “patent letters” as if they were articles of footwear, while under Auerstedt (misspelled, as the elided “ae” in Auerstaedt is given as a simple “e”), as in several French entries, some place names of titles are followed by the letters FR, in case we might suppose them located elsewhere. If the editor really considers this a necessary addition to the text, why are not all place names so indicated? The old Gotha used to put the province or region in some cases where the territory was situated which can be useful, but to be told the country is pointless. Surely he does not have such a low opinion of his reader’s intelligence that he needs to state that Brussels is in Belgium (as he has done under Ursel) and that Florence (under Troubetzkoy) and Milan (under Galitzine) are in Italy? Or is this perhaps just a reminder to himself? 

The history of the Bauffremont family is rendered so confusing as to be useless to anyone hoping to understand how the Gorrevod inheritance passed to the Bauffremont family – and why is Gorrevod spelled Gorevault, an entirely novel spelling for the name of this ancient family. Here one regrets that the editors of this publication did not take the opportunity to correct the errors made in the pre-1944 edition – the Marquis de Bauffremont-Listenois became Seigneur du mandement du duché de Pont de Vaux, not Duke. The present Duke of Bauffremont’s father was a Grandee of Spain, not a Grand of Spain – surely the editors of this publication would know how to translate “Grand d’Espagne”! Unfortunately this error is repeated frequently, and in at least one case a lady (the Princess of Robech, 1884-1951) is described as a “Grandess of Spain”, and this peculiar term is also referred to under Boncompagni Ludovisi, where the 3^rd Prince of Piombino is inelegantly described as having “got the hereditary Grandess of Spain of 1^st Class in 1739”! 

Among the new entries to the world of European and Princely families is that of “Beguin Billecocq Durazzo”, a name that has hitherto been omitted in the catalogue of European higher nobility. We are told that this family descends “in direct female line from the French royal capetian house, through King Charles VII and his wife Marguerite of Anjou Sicily”. We are not informed through which of this couple’s eight daughters the Beguin family descends (and whose descendants must number in the tens of thousands), but suffice it to say that while Jougla de Morenas mentions a Beguin family, from Champagne, ennobled in 1697, the family is ignored by La Chesnaye-Desbois et Badier, although Hozier (Volume V, pp. 13-16) gives a detailed genealogy. Alas, not only does Hozier fail to note this royal descent, but no mention is made of the “younger branch” – nor the titles of Count of Savigny and Sausseuil. The entry claims that Jean Beguin was created an hereditary Roman Count (i.e. Papal Count), by “Brief 08 Jan 1903” for all male descendants – surely a unique honor, as Papal titles were created for life, or by primogeniture descent.  This purported creation is not included in the  listing of French recipients of Papal titles in Serreville and Saint-Simon, nor indeed in Dioudonnat. 

The elevation to Princely rank of the Beguin family apparently took place by grace of King Zog of Albania on 15 Oct 1928, for Jean Beguin Billcoq, whom the self-proclaimed Monarch purportedly made Duke and Prince of Durazzo, with the Princely title and qualification of Highness for all male line descendants. The Kennedy Gotha entry generously accords to each member listed the qualification HH (for His or Her Highness), but why is the appropriate qualification of rank not given to all those other, mostly Serene Highnesses, listed elsewhere in this work? The momentous creation of Duke and Prince of one of the principal cities of Albania apparently occurred just six weeks after Zog proclaimed himself King. According to the Kennedy Gotha, Jean, the recipient of his largesse, was “Minister for France in Albania, Honorary Plenipotentiary Minister for France, etc (1875-1936).” Yet the Almanachs de Gotha in 1928 and 1929 stated that the French Minister was a M. Moisson, baron de Vaux, and prior to that in previous editions name a M. Beguin Billecoq only as “chargé d’affaires and consul at Scutari.” The present Duke and Prince is apparently married to Claude, daughter of “Count Charles Marie Raoul de Tristan … of the Marquesses of Tristan”; while there is a noble family of this name it was never elevated above the rank of Ecuyer. The entry on the Beguin family concludes with the statement that the title of Duke and Prince was “confirmed and registered by French Republic Presidential Decree 14 Sept 1929”. No such title has ever been authorized in France, however.[2]  

Another new entry to these ranks is that of Casalnuovo (House of Marullo di Condojanni). Headed today by the distinguished Grand Chancellor of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, this family is described as having held a variety of titles, although none of those listed actually passed to the line included here, whose connection to the earlier lines is difficult to fathom from the brief history given in this work. It is a pity that the editor could not have taken the opportunity to provide a full history of the families of new entrants, particularly when the representative holds a prominent position, as in this case. Furthermore, as this branch of the Marullo family was carelessly omitted from the 1935 Elenco Ufficiale of the Italian Nobility (produced by the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri), and is merely listed as "Nobile di Messina" in the 1960 Elenco Storico della Nobilta Italiana (produced by the SMOM), most readers might appreciate more information. It is explained that the Princely title was created in 1977 for the present holder’s father by King Umberto II, while in exile, but no date is given for the creation of the title of Count (created by the same Monarch, again in exile, in 1971), nor for the assumption of the predicato “di Condojanni" (dating from 1965). Surely a responsibility of the new Gotha is to amplify such information when there are no adequate alternative sources where it  might be published? 

The simple inaccuracies here are legion: Princes Biron,  Bismarck, Blucher, Dohna-Schlobitten,  Radolin, Thun und Hohenstein, and the Duke and Princes of Urach are all Durchlaucht (Serene Highness), not Hoheit (Highness) as the Kennedy Gotha indicates. The Prince of Eulenberg is a Durchlaucht, although the Kennedy Gotha gives him no qualification; the Duc de Blacas is Prince of Blacas d’Aulps, not Blacas Aulps.  The Prince of Hatzfeldt is indeed Duke of Trachenberg, but why in the family history is no explanation given for the Ducal title, while an inaccurate recitation of the acquisition of the title of "Prince" of Trachenberg is given instead? What prompted the editors under this same family to note the "acquisition of the independent Lordship of Wildenburg, which wasn't an independent state of the Roman Empire"? Aside from the unusual description of the "Holy Roman," or, more accurately, German, Empire, the statement of this negative could apply to the vast majority of German noble estates. Why especially note this in regard to the Hatzfeldt family? 

The Prince of Faucigny-Lucinge enjoys the title of  Prince of Cystria, but, according to the Kennedy Gotha under the entry on this family (listed under Lucinge), the family is named as “Fuacigny” and the text states “Italian Royal Authorization to restore the Title of Duke (my italics) of Sistria, 02 July 1920”. If the reader hopes to rely on this information he might advisedly double check every such claim – in actuality the Italian King authorized the “revival” of the title of “Prince (not Duke) of Cystria” (not Systria) on that date, for Ferdinand, 3^rd Prince of Faucigny-Lucinge. The Putbus title is given as being “extinct,” but surely it would have been worth noting that this ancient territorial title has actually been perpetuated and the title revived, by a unique decision of the German Nobility Association, based on the original patent of creation. The Ducal family of Rarecourt de la Vallee de Pimodan is also described as extinct, despite there being a living Duke with a thirty-two year old son and heir. The Princes of la Tour d’Auvergne are likewise stated to be extinct – the family of la Tour d’Auvergne d’Apchier is, indeed, extinct; however the Prince of La Tour d’Auvergne Lauraguais (Papal title) still has a large family – this latter family was included in the Gotha in the 1860s (but then why should one expect the Editor to be familiar with earlier editions, his work bears such little resemblance to the original). Under Resuttano, the family name is properly listed at the head of the entry as Napoli Rampolla, but the present Prince is described as “Prince Don Francesco di Naples Rampolla”. 

With similar negligence, under Doria, the family name is given as Dpria Pamphilj Landi, and the late Princess Orietta is described as having “had issue” – tragically for her and her late husband, however, they were unable to have children and instead adopted a boy and a girl, who have continued the family name but not the titles. The Maillé family (the accent is missing from both the title and family name at the head of the entry – even though accents can be omitted from upper case words, the title of the actual Duke, also written in upper case, does have the accent), apparently come from “Tourraine (sic) Province, FR.” Elsewhere one may read of marriages being “annulated,” of “authoriation” to bear titles, and of (under Mérode) the “Belgian concession of Princely qualification by Decree 05 July 1929 for all the members of the family bearing the name at this period in time.” Which period in time? Under Montaperto, we learn that Don Salvatore Montaperto “was authorised to bear the dukely title”, a form of “Ducal” that I have never seen hitherto. In noting the course of Ducal marriages, would it not have been worth pointing out that the 2^nd wife of the 15^th Duke of Uzès, the late Margaret Bancroft, had previously been married to the late Duke and Prince Charles d’Arenberg (she was the mother of Duke and Prince Pierre d’Arenberg)? 

Under Luynes we learn that the family was created “Duke of Montfot 1694” (a factual error repeated from the pre-1944 Gotha, although the spelling in the Kennedy Gotha is a further blunder) and later became “Prince of Vallengrain” (sic). The author, however, fails to inform us that the Duchy-Peerage of Luynes was created for Charles d’Albert in August (registered 14 Sep) 1619, while his elder son and heir, who inherited the Duchy of Chevreuse from his mother, was recreated  Duke of Chevreuse 1 May 1663 (a title subsequently recreated for the latter’s son). The Dukes of Luynes are in fact only Counts of Montfort, the 2^nd Duke of Chevreuse having transferred the duchy to his son, the Count de Montfort, who preferred to use the Ducal style with the latter territory (as part of an exchange with the Crown the barony of Chevreuse had been exchanged for the County of Montfort). This, however, was not a separate creation and his successors reverted to the Chevreuse title. The younger brother of the 1^st Duke of Luynes was created Duke-Peer of Chaulnes in January (registered 6 March) 1621, although, like the creation of the Luynes and Chevreuse titles, this is ignored by the Kennedy Gotha. With the extinction of the first line of Luynes-Chaulnes, the title was recreated on 8 Oct (registered 1 Dec) 1711, for a younger son of the 3^rd Duke of Luynes; and then revived again in 1869 under the terms of a revised patent of March (registered 25 and 27^th April) 1733, which provided that the Luynes and Chevreuse titles on the one hand, and Chaulnes titles on the other, could revert between the two branches in the even of the extinction of one or the other. The titles of Prince of Neuchâtel and Vallengin (not Vallengrain) were acquired by inheritance, thanks to a prudent marriage with the heiress of the Bourbon-Soissons family, but these successions were not confirmed by patent. 

The editors of the Kennedy Gotha, however, have confined the information regarding the Duchy of Luynes to the dates of its recreation in 1817 as an hereditary Duchy-Peerage of the Restoration Peerage, a very different body to that which existed prior to 1789 and making it one of the more junior Duke-Peerages, rather than one of the most senior. No explanation is given either in the history or the genealogical text as to the basis on which the brother of the present Duke of Luynes has assumed the title of Duke of Chaulnes. Why not, however, when the information on the 1733 patent is so readily available? The information given above took only twenty minutes to find and write out. Whoever was responsible for the abysmal histories of the French Ducal houses only had to produce them for some thirty-four families – an exercise that could have been completed in three or four days, at the most if he had been familiar with the principal sources to draw upon. Similar errors and omissions were made in the La Rochefoucauld entry, where the heads of cadet lines also use Ducal or Princely titles, in some cases legally and others by assumption. 

When confronted with another eminent French family, that of Rohan, the limited capacities of the editor are revealed at their most inadequate. As should surely be well known to anyone with the slimmest knowledge of the French nobility, the great Rohan inheritance divided in the 16^th century. The senior branch became extinct in the male line and their estates and titles passed to the family of Chabot, which took the name Rohan-Chabot and is invested with the title of Duke of Rohan, among others. Meanwhile, the second line, of Dukes of Montbazon, has continued to thrive to the present day, resident in Austria since the early 19^th century where they enjoy the title of Austrian Prince. Indeed one member of this family holds a prominent position in the European Union. Astonishingly, the author of this entry has managed to conflate the histories of both families into one, and in the history preceding the genealogy headed by Josselin, 14^th Duke of Rohan (etc), declares this line Duke of Montbazon, Duke of Rohan-Rohan, Prince of Rochefort, and Austrian Prince – even according it the title of Duke of Bouillon and hereditary membership in the Austrian House of Lords! No mention, however, is actually made of the real family invested with these latter titles (the title of Duke of Rohan-Rohan is in fact extinct). Such stupidity in a publication that claims any authority in this field would seem incredible unless one knew the identity of the editor. Perhaps one should be thankful, however, that with many of the French entries the author has entirely neglected to include any history at all and no explanation for the origin or date of creation of the titles. Since the simple exercise of copying and translating the entries from the pre-1944 editions was apparently beyond the author of these entries, we should probably be grateful for the omissions. A similar confusion has occurred with the history of the Massimo and Massimo Lancellotti family, in which the history of both is given together while the genealogy of the line headed by the Prince of Arsoli is omitted entirely. 

In claiming to be an authoritative source one would expect that the individuals included in this publication would be the legal heirs of the titles attributed to them. The pre-1944 Gotha was not entirely free from error in this respect, and indeed the inclusion of the false Prince Basil d’Anjou Durazzo Durassow, “Duke of Durazzo” is a stain that can never be shaken off (here the editors have included this family among the one word listings, as “extinct” – perhaps they are unaware that Basil’s purported son, Alexis Brimeyer, managed to produce a son before he succumbed to AIDS). Why, however, has the editor included the Marquis de Castries as “Duke of Castries”? It is well known that the Ducal line of this distinguished family is extinct and the present “Duke” is not the heir to the higher title. He certainly represents a great name, and his assumptions of this title has largely been accepted by society – but why include it in what purports to be an authoritative reference source? Under Talleyrand, Violette, Countess of Pourtalès is described as Duchess of Sagan, a title that she uses on the basis that she is the daughter and heiress of the 5^th Duke of Talleyrand – however the original patent and family pact which determined the succession of this duchy probably do not make her the heiress to the title. Without any explanation the editors have also ventured into the dangerous area of ancient Balkan families that assumed the Princely title on the basis of their descent from sovereign princes in Wallachia or quasi-sovereigns of other areas within the Turkish Empire. While including that of Mavrocordato, however, they omit others more famous such as Cantacuzene and Sturdza (although there is reference to a Prince Strudza (sic) under another entry). 

Altogether this publication is of interest as a curiosity, but as a useful source of reference it is more misleading than informative. If anyone wishes to throw away £60 they could buy this book for the brief entertainment value, but would then be advised to chuck it in the trash before being tempted to take anything in it as factually reliable. There is one useful addition - twenty blank pages at the back for "Notes"; unfortunately the space available is totally insufficient to correct the multitude of errors.