Fred Forchelli - Chapter 2

Chapter 2 – The Piece of Paper

Fred rolled his chair toward the corner and reached down to pick up the piece of paper. Then, sitting back up, he opened up the fold to see what was written on it. It was blank! Somewhat puzzled, he examined it more closely. Sure enough, there was his name on the one side, written a big, flowing script. But the remainder of the piece of paper appeared to have nothing on it. What was going on?

It was then that Fred recalled a course he had taken as part of his degree in criminal justice. The elective he had originally signed up for had been cancelled at the last minute and so he had needed one more credit that semester. Glancing quickly through the course catalog he saw listed among the optional courses for that degree a course in the communications department – COM214 Stenography. Knowing that he was likely going to have to dictate things to a secretary for various reports, he thought that would be a useful course to have. He signed up and then went to the college bookstore to pickup the required books – sighing with relief when they were all paperbacks rather than the thick hardcover tomes he was used to for law classes.

It was not until he was sitting in the first class a few days later that he realized that he had mis-read the course catalog. The word that he had thought was Stenography was in fact Steganography. And what a difference that one syllable made!

(He did eventually take a course that helped improve his skills in dictation (COM311 Dictation and Stenography) and was glad that he did. In fact, one of the reasons why he chose the small office in which he was sitting was because of the business on the second floor of that building – O’Brien’s Office Services. He was able to contract with them for the production of official documents when needed. And he was usually helped by Jennifer who was getting quite skilled at reading his scrawling handwriting. Also, his contract with O’Brien’s meant that he did not need either a typewriter or a printer in his office or have to deal with adding ink or having the cartridges dry out due to lack of use.)

But for the moment as he sat there in this course on steganography the solution to his eventual dictation issue was not yet in his mind. He was stuck taking a course he was not expecting. He couldn’t drop it as he needed to have a minimum number of credits. And the bookstore policy was to buy back books for only 25% of the original price – even if they were unused. He pulled the books from the depths of his backpack to see what he would be facing. One was titled, “Hiding in Plain Sight: Steganography and the Art of Covert Communication.” The other had the intriguing title of “Prisoners, Lovers, and Spies: The Story of Invisible Ink from Herodotus to al-Qaeda.” Turning his attention from the books to the instructor, he began listening.

Professor Harrison was introducing himself. He had several years of experience working in covert operations in the US government. And he was hoping to share the skills that he had learned with the class. Fred became enrapt. Over the next several weeks he learned all about the art of secret communication. The only negative was that some of the methods relied on mathematics and physics or chemistry – the subjects that Fred despised in high school and that he had been avoiding in college. But despite those dislikes and accompanying lack of ability, Fred had managed to get a solid B in the class. However, he had not used those skills since then – until now.

Fred looked over the piece of paper in his hand. By holding it obliquely with the light streaming in the window reflecting off it, he could see that there were areas that appeared shinier than others. Yes, he thought, there may be something written on it with invisible ink. But what kind of invisible ink, and how should he go about making it appear?

From the section of the course on invisible ink, he knew that there were several different kinds – lemon juice, dissolved baking soda, milk, white crayon, etc. But the method of exposing the writing differed and some of the solutions (like using grape juice to expose the baking soda “ink”) would then prevent some of the other solutions from being used. He needed to try the non-destructive ones first.

The obvious one to try first was the one used for lemon juice writing. But that was generally exposure to a hot light bulb or an open flame. The only source of light in his office was the pair of fluorescent bulbs on the ceiling and they were both too high up and did not generate enough heat to be effective for this. And since Fred was a non-smoker, he did not have a lighter whose flame might work.

It was then that Fred saw the coffee pot sitting on the hot plate on the windowsills. Yes, that might do the trick! Setting the coffee pot on the floor, he turned on the hot plate. It didn’t take long to heat up. Being careful to avoid burning his fingers – and to avoid touching the paper to the hot surface where it might catch on fire – Fred moved the paper back and forth to warm it up evenly.

He was almost giving up when the paper finally began to take on a slightly browned look and the message on the paper came into view. Just a few more seconds and the invisible ink message was readable. There on the paper was the word “CALL” and a phone number!

 

< Prior Chapter | Next Chapter >

Fred Forchelli - Chapter 1

 

Fred Forchelli

World-renowned

Well-known

Investigator and Lawyer

 

The Case of the Piece of Paper

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A short story

by

Alan Russell

 

Chapter 1 – The Office

It was an overly-warm, sultry day in late May – which forebode a summer which would have many more such days – when struggling attorney Frederick Flintstone Forchelli, who was convinced that his parents must have named him after drinking something much stronger than the diet Pepsi that he preferred, opened the door of the small non-airconditioned office on the upper floor in the converted factory/office building which was all he could afford at this stage of his career.

At first glance everything looked as it had when he had locked the door the previous Friday. There was a heavy wooden desk along the left wall – it had only cost him $5 at the local Goodwill a few years ago, but then he had to pay two burley guys to collect it in a rusted pickup and haul it up the stairs since there was no elevator in the building. They had been using some fairly colorful language by the time they finally got it through the door and properly positioned. They had also been sweating profusely. While they accepted the $30 he had paid them for their services, he was pretty certain that they used some more of that colorful language to describe him once they were out of earshot. The desk served him well – except for the left-hand middle drawer which tended to stick when it got humid – which was most of the time. And nobody particularly noticed the shabbiness of the desk as it was well covered with stacks of books, manila folders, and the typical detritus that lawyers tend to accumulate.

The right wall of the office was occupied by a metal Steelcase bookcase – also rescued from the local Goodwill for $2. He had transported that himself by putting the shelves in the back seat and tying the shell to the roof of his car with a couple of ropes. The roof was already scratched up, so the addition of a few more scratches did not concern him as much as the strange looks he received from passing motorists gawking at him during the trip to the office. But he had underestimated the effort it would take to get the bookcase up the flights of stairs, and it took two weeks before the scrapes on his forearms healed properly. Once he reassembled it, he had nearly filled it with all the law textbooks that he had accumulated. However, he found that with only a few exceptions that he had never referenced those textbooks and now they mostly gathered dust. The original unfilled portion of the shelves were now stuffed with the overflow of manila folders that would not fit in his desk. Additional folders covered the tops of the unused books as well as the space under the lowest shelf.

The only other furniture in the room was a pair of chairs – not a matching pair, certainly, but there were two of them. There was a typical wooden chair to the left of the desk which was for clients – when they visited him in the office, which was not very frequently. It also was currently occupied by a couple of piles of folders for his last few cases. But they could be cleared off pretty quickly if necessary.

But the entire center of the room was dominated by Fred’s pride and joy – a high-backed imitation leather chair. It not only swiveled but could roll around on the five-wheeled base. And even better, it reclined! So besides being useful when he had to turn toward the bookcase to locate a needed folder, Fred had spent many hours leaned back in that chair as he pondered the evidence he had collected and considered how to best approach solving a case. He had ordered it from a catalog where the company would even deliver it to his office. Conveniently, the delivery date had turned out to be a Saturday, and since the other offices on that floor were closed, he was able to spread out all the components in the hallway during the time it took to assemble it. The necessary Allen wrenches were even included in the plastic covered and numbered cardboard sheet that held the various assembly components. There had only been one small moment of panic when he had one extra screw and one extra washer left over at the end of the process. But then he noticed that the instructions mentioned that extra parts were included in case of any manufacturing defects. Those extra parts, along with the instructions, were safely ensconced in the back of the bottom left-hand drawer.

There were only a few other items in the office. There was an electric pencil sharpener and a hot plate and coffee pot on the windowsill that were plugged into the only outlet in the room which was just below the window. Fred didn’t normally drink coffee, but if he was going to be having a client, he would fill the pot from the sink in the bathroom down the hall and make some – usually to be thrown out unused after the client left. There was a telephone/answering machine on the right-hand side of the desk. And there was a coat hook on the inside of the door with Fred’s sports coat hanging on it. The light on the answering machine was not blinking – that was pretty typical. Fred did most of his business on the low-end flip phone in his pocket. But the office phone was the one listed in the various Internet sites for his business.

Fred put his briefcase on the floor next to the bookshelves and sagged into his office chair. He had a couple of follow-up phone calls to make and some notes to clean up from the cases he had been working on the last week. But otherwise, it promised to be a typically dull Monday. It was only approaching 9 o’clock and already the temperature was getting uncomfortable. He pondered whether he should invest in a fan to put on the windowsill. Since the coffee pot got so little use, he could use that second plug for the fan. And if he needed to recharge the laptop that was in his briefcase, he could always unplug the pencil sharpener. But he would also have to then worry about the impact that a fan could have on the loose pieces of paper on his desk or on the top of the bookcase. Was he willing to change his habits just to have the comfort of the air movement from the fan?

It was while he was pondering the wisdom of this expense that he saw it. Something was out of place! On the floor where the door had pushed it when he had come into the office was a folded piece of paper with “Fred Forchelli, Esq.” written on it!

  

Next Chapter >

 

Elizabeth Pierrepont – Bigamist

In the prior blog post, it says the following regarding Evelyn Pierrepont, second duke of Kingston, “His grace married Miss Chudleigh, one of the maids of honour to the late dowager princess of Wales; a marriage of which it is here unnecessary to speak, inasmuch as the peculiar circumstances attending it, are to be found at large in the records of the State Trials.” And in a post I wrote a few months ago, I wrote, “He had married, but the marriage was later found to be bigamous. His nephews challenged his will, but the bigamy was found not to affect his wife’s inheritance of the property.” But what is really going on here? And why was it so significant that it is recorded in the “State Trials”? More investigation is needed.

 

Research

Article on Evelyn Pierrepont in Wikipedia:

“On 8 March 1769, Pierrepont married Elizabeth Hervey at Keith's Chapel in the parish of St George's, Hanover Square, Westminster, although their marriage was later judged to have been bigamous. He died in 1773 without issue, and his titles became extinct. On the death of the bigamous Duchess in 1788, the Pierrepont estates passed to Charles Medows, who was the son of the 2nd Duke's sister, Lady Frances Medows. Charles Medows changed his name to Pierrepont in 1796 and, in 1806, he was created the first Earl Manvers”

Article on Charles Medows/Pierrepont from Wikipedia:

“In 1773, Medows's uncle, Evelyn Pierrepont, 2nd Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull, died and left his estates at Thoresby and elsewhere to his wife Elizabeth, Duchess of Kingston, the former wife of the Earl of Bristol. The duke's nephews challenged the will on the grounds of bigamy, and the proceedings which followed established that the marriage of the Duchess had indeed been bigamous. However, this was found not to affect her inheritance, so she was able to retain the Pierrepont estates until her death, which took place in August 1788. Upon inheriting the estates, Medows adopted the surname of Pierrepont by Royal Licence.”

Article on Elizabeth Chudleigh/Pierrepont in Wikipedia:

“On 4 August 1744, she was privately married to Hervey … The wedding was held at night to preserve the secrecy (so she could continue to work as a maid of honor) … Hervey wanted to end their marriage by divorce, but Chudleigh preferred to avoid any public acknowledgement of it. She initiated a suit of jactitation (see note below) … the consistory court in February 1769 pronounced her a spinster … Within a month she married Kingston.”

Note – Jactitation is where one person falsely asserts that he or she is married to another and the wronged party can obtain an order restraining further repetitions of the falsehood.

An interesting blog post by someone else in regard to the picture in the Wikipedia article:

[Chudleigh as Iphigenia]

“One of her famous stunts was her appearance at a costume party [in 1749], where King George II, among others, was present, and in fact the good King took quite a personal interest in Miss Chudleigh's original costume. She was semi-dressed as a maiden from Greek mythology, Iphigenia. Whether it was historical faithfulness or mere artistic license at work, readers will have to decide for themselves, but the costume Miss Chudleigh / Mrs. Hervey wore apparently began at the waist and worked its way diaphanously down her legs, declining to travel any distance at all in the northerly direction. Topless, in other words.”

A recent article in the New York Post:

How a 56-year-old ‘bigamist’ duchess became most notorious lady in England.

A manuscript from the University of Nottingham:

“The 1776 trial for bigamy of Elizabeth Pierrepont, Duchess of Kingston, gripped the nation. … Tickets for the trial were keenly sought by members of the public. … The trial for bigamy took place over five days… After hearing the evidence, all 119 Lords took it in turn to declare their verdict. Each spoke the word ‘Guilty’.”

I was able to get a copy of a manuscript that was written about that trial, “An authentic detail of particulars relative to the late duchess of Kingston” which was published shortly after she died in 1788. Besides the information on her life and the trial, a large portion of this manuscript is devoted to a complete copy of the will that she left in 1788. In this there were dozens of specific bequests, including many to her nephew, Charles Medows, despite his involvement in the lawsuit against her which resulted in her fleeing to France and Russia for the last dozen years of her life.

 

Summary

Was Elizabeth Chudleigh/Hervey/Pierrepont a bigamist? Most certainly. There were witnesses to her wedding at night, there were witnesses to the birth of her child with Hervey, etc. The evidence was overwhelming enough that the vote of the jury of the house of lords was 119-0. But she was still able to flee England after the trial and continue living abroad.

Upon her death she was quite generous, giving not only much to Charles Medows, her nephew, but she even had a bequest to the Pope in Rome.

However, since the charge of bigamy did not prevent her inheritance from the Duke of Kingston, it meant that Charles Medows did not inherit what/when he thought he should. Thus, instead of taking over the Duke’s estates in 1773, it had to wait another 15 years until 1788. Thus, it was not until then that he adopted the surname of Pierrepont (as the finally owner of Holme Pierrepont). Eight years later (at the age of 59 instead of 44) he was created Baron Pierrepont and Viscount Newark and then in 1806 (at age 69) he was elevated to Earl Manvers. It was fortunate that he lived to the age of 79 as otherwise the title of Earl Manvers might never have come his way.

The escapades of Elizabeth Chudleigh were not only sensational for that time in English history but had real consequences for other people as well.

 

The Pierrepont Peers

As part of my continuing exploration into the peers in the English Pierrepont family, I have come across and interesting book. The full title of this book, in the tradition of books at the time, is quite imposing.

“DORMANT AND EXTINCT BARONAGE OF ENGLAND, or, An Historical and Genealogical Account of the Lives, Public Employments, and Most Memorable Actions of the English Nobility who have flourished from the Norman Conquest to the Year 1809: deduced from public records, ancient historians, the works of eminent heralds, and from other celebrated and approved authorities.”

This massive book was published in 1809 by T[homas] C[hristopher] Banks. Interestingly, the Pierrepont family is not found alphabetically under the letter P as one might expect. Rather, since all the members of the family were also Earl/Duke of Kingston, they are found under the entry for Kingston. Below I have replicated the entirety of that section, including the accompanying charts. While much of this information can also be found in the prior blogs I have posted on this topic (see here and here), what I find interesting is the comments on the lives of some of these individuals.

For example, at one point Henry comes into the building and announces that he lost his seal so that if there are any documents which later contain that impression they are invalid. Also, Robert was so loved by the commoners which he oversaw that they called him the “Good Earl of Kingston”. These looks into the personalities of the individuals makes them much more real than just a bunch of titles and genealogical connections.

In the very last paragraph is a reference to Miss Chudleigh and the “peculiar circumstances” of her marriage. I’ll be posting separately about that subject.

So, without further ado, here is the entry for the Kingston Earls and Dukes that were created for the Pierrepont family. The only thing I have changed in retyping this is to replace occurrences of the letter “f” where it is used for non-terminating instances of the letter “s” so that it is more readable.

 

 

 

KINGSTON

ARMS – Arg. Semee of Conquefoils G. a Lion rampant S.

            THOUGH the family of Pierrepont did not arrive to the dignity of peerage till of late years, yet it has made a considerable figure ever since the time of the conquest. Of which name

            ROBERT DE PIERREPONT was of the retinue of earl Warren; and, according to the French genealogy, is said to have been one of the commanders in the army of the Conqueror. This Robert is handed down as great grandfather to [footnote here that Edmonson, in his Baronagium Genealogicum, makes him grandson, but Collins states him as son and heir of Robert de Pierrepoint.]

            WILLIAM DE PIERREPONT, who had issue two sons, Simon and Robert; where of the former died S.P. leaving the said

            ROBERT, his brother and heir; who, at the battle of Lewes, was on the part of Henry III and was there taken prisoner, whereby he was put to 700 marks fine for his ransom; a great sum in those days.

            Sir HENRY DE PIERREPONT, his son (or grandson), married Annora, daughter to Michael, and sister and heir to Lionel de Manvers; whereby he acquired a considerable inheritance in Nottinghamshire, and the lordship of Holme, now called Holme Pierrepont. In the 8^th Edward I it is recorded of him, that he came into chancery, then at Lincoln, and publicly declared that he had lost his seal; and that if any instrument was sealed with it after that day, it ought to be invalid. He deceased circ. 20^th Edward I having had issue by the said Annora, two sons, Simon and Robert. Of which,

            SIMON was one of those who, the 22d Edward I had summons among the barons of the realm, to attend the king upon certain weighty affairs of the realm. But he died, leaving only daughter, Sibilla, who married Edmund Ufford, whereby his brother Robert, was his next heir male. Which

            ROBERT, during the reigns of Edward I, II, III was a person of great eminence, and repeatedly in the wars of Scotland, where he served with great honour. The 1^st of Edward III he had summons to parliament among the barons of the realm; and having married Sarah, daughter, and at length heir, of Sir John Heriz, knight, died, leaving

            HENRY, his son and heir, from whom after many descents, was

            ROBERT PIERREPONT, who was strongly attached to the interest of that unhappy monarch, Charles I, by whom he was created, in 1627, baron Pierrepont, of Holme Pierrepont, and viscount Newark, both in com. Notts; and, the year following, was advanced to the dignity of earl of Kingston upon Hull, in Yorkshire.

            So eminent was this nobleman for his acts of charity, hospitality, and munificence, that he was usually styled by the common people, the Good Earl of Kingston: and such was his influence in consequence thereof, and of his great estate, that he is said to have brought 4000 men to the royal standard on the breaking out of the civil war; of whom, 2000 were able and willing to serve him with their persons, and the rest with arms and money.

            This popularity rendered him particularly obnoxious to the parliament; whose general, the lord Willoughby of Parham, surprised and made him prisoner at Gainsborough, from which he was sent, in an open boat, toward Hull. But Sir Charles Cavendish pursuing the boat, and coming up with it, demanded the surrender of the earl; which being refused, his men fired upon the boat and unhappily killed his lordship, and his servant; though they took the boat, and put the crew to the sword, 30^th July, 1643.

            He married Gertrude, daughter and coheir to Henry Talbot, a younger son of George earl of Shrewsbury, and had issue six sons; [footnote: Of the five younger sons of this nobleman, William, the second, married Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of Sir Thomas Harris, of Tong Castle, in Shropshire, and had a numerous issue. Whereof, Robert, the eldest son, married a daughter and coheir of Sir John Evelyn, who became first duke of Kingston; and also Gervase, his youngest son, who was created, in 1714, baron Pierrepont, of Hanslope. This William was one of the leading members in the house of commons during the civil war; but was always against violent measures, and industrious to reconcile the unhappy differences of the times. Among the valuable collection of this gentleman’s paper and MSS, which were consumed in the fire at Thoresby, in 1746, were the original minutes and papers relating to the treaties with Charles I at Uxbridge, and in the Isle of Wight. He survived the restoration; and died in 1679.] viz. Henry, William, Francis, Robert, Gervase, and George; also three daughters; of which Frances married Philip Rolleston, esquire; Mary died young; and Elizabeth, unmarried.

            HENRY, second earl of Kingston, in 1645, was created marquis of Dorchester. Though his attachment to the king was firm and steady, yet the effect of it was limited to supplies in money; whereby he avoided the censure of the parliamentary party. He was a very studious nobleman, and very learned, particularly in law and physic; but there are no specimens of his talents, excepting a few speeches on different occasions, and a letter to John lord Roos, his son-in-law, in relation to the controversy carried on between him and his daughter, concerning the legality of parliamentary divorces. His lordship was twice married: by his first wife, daughter of Paul viscount Banning, he had a son, Robert, who died an infant; and two daughters, where of Anne married John lord Roos, after earl of Rutland, from whom she was divorced; and Grace died unmarried. His second lady was daughter of James earl of Derby; and by her he had one son, Henry, who died in his infancy. Having no surviving male issue, and deceasing in 1680, the title of marquis of Dorchester became extinct, but that of earl of Kingston descended to his great nephew.

            ROBERT, grandson and heir of William, his second brother; which Robert died unmarried, in 1682, at Dieppe, in France, as he was on his travels, and was succeeded by his brother,

            WILLIAM, who enjoyed the title about eight years; and then having no issue by Anne his wife, daughter of Robert lord Brooke, transmitted the same to his next brother and heir,

            Francis, third son, married Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of Thomas Bray, of Eyam, in com. Derby, esquire; and having built a fair fest at Nottingham, died in 1657.

            Robert, fourth son, died without issue, and unmarried; as did

            Gervase, fifth son, at Haerlem, in Holland, in 1678-9; the probate of whose will bears date 13^th February, 1678-9, whereby he bequeathed £10,000 to the first person of his family who should obtain the honour and title of a duke.

            George, the sixth and youngest son, was seated at Old Cotes, in Derbyshire, and married a sister to Sir Samuel Jones, of Corthen-Hall, in Northamptonshire; by whom he had two sons, Henry and Samuel, who both died unmarried.

            EVELYN, who, the 23d of December, 1706, was created marquis of Dorchester, with remainder to his uncle Gervase lord Pierrepont, of Hanslope; and on the 20^th July, 1715, was advanced to the rank and dignity of duke of Kingston. Moreover, in 1719, he was elected a knight of the garter; and in such estimation and favour was he at court, that he was four times appointed one of the lords justices whilst his majesty went to Hanover. His grace married, first, Mary, daughter to William earl of Denbigh; by who he had an only son, William, who died before him, and three daughters. His second wife was Isabella, daughter of William earl of Portland; which lady brought him two daughters, namely, Catherine (or Carolina), married to Thomas Brand, of Fyfield, in Essex, esquire; and Anne, who died unmarried. And dying in March, 1725-6, he was succeeded by his grandson, Evelyn, only son and heir of William, his eldest son beforenamed. Which

            EVELYN, second duke of Kingston, was also a knight of the garter; and on breaking out of the rebellion, in 1745, was among the first of those noblemen who evinced their attachment to the family on the throne, by raising regiments to assist his majesty’s forces in the subduing thereof. But notwithstanding this instance of zeal for the maintenance of the order of things as established at the Revolution, his grace did not concern himself with matters of state. He is said to have been endowed with many virtues, humanity in particular; an open, ingenuous, manly frankness, with candour, generosity, and courage. His grace married Miss Chudleigh, one of the maids of honour to the late dowager princess of Wales; a marriage of which it is here unnecessary to speak, inasmuch as the peculiar circumstances attending it, are to be found at large in the records of the State Trials. Having no issue, the honours of this house became extinct with the death of the duke, in 1773.

[Charts]

 

 

 

Peerage in the Pierrepont Family – part 2

In an earlier posting, I went through all the peerage titles (Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess, and Duke) that had been held by various members of the Pierrepont family over 11 generations from 1627 to 1955. English primogeniture rules generally pass property (including titles) to the oldest son. This keeps estates together instead of constantly dividing them among the various children and making them smaller and smaller with each division. But except for younger sons possibly outliving an older brother who had no male children and then becoming the primary heir, they are usually left out of the inheritance chain. But that does not necessarily mean that they get nothing.

One avenue is for them to receive property that came into the family from their mother instead of through their father. Another is to marry into another family where they or their spouse may be the inheritor of property or titles. This latter avenue is usually the only one for daughters.

But in those days, not unlike today, the individuals in the “upper crust” often mingle with others like themselves and not with the “commoners”, so such intermarriages are not uncommon. The same is true in the Pierrepont family. So, I thought it appropriate to look and see what happened to the other children in each generation. Did they not inherit anything? Or did they inherit through other means than by being the oldest son?

In the below, these six generations match with the genealogical charts that I recently acquired that had been written in 1764. In those charts there are different types of crowns for Baron/Viscount/Earl/Marquis/Duke. The children who are indented are the others in that generation and what happened to them.

 

Generation 1

·         Robert (1584-1643) – Created Baron Pierrepont in 1627 and simultaneously created Viscount Newark in the peerage of England. Also created Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull in 1628. The Earl title was “heirs general…”

o   Grace – married Sir George Manners, knight

o   Elizabeth – married Richard Stapleton, Esq.

o   Frances – married Thomas, Earl of Kelly

o   Mary – married Fulk Cartwright of Ossington, Com. Nottingham

 

Generation 2

·         Henry (1606-1680) – inherited all the titles from his father Robert. Also created Marquess of Dorchester in 1645. Survived both his sons, so with no male heirs “of the body” his Marquessate title became extinct with his passing. However, the titles that he had inherited from his father could be passed on to other heirs of his father.

·         William (1607-1678) – as the younger son of Robert, did not inherit any titles and, as he predeceased his older brother, he never got to inherit from him either. However, he did have male children in the next generation.

o   Francis – married Elizabeth, daughter and co-heir of Thomas Bray, of Eyam, Com. Derby, Esq.

o   Robert – died unmarried

o   Gervase – died unmarried

o   George – married Mary, daughter of Isaac Jones of Cortenhall, Com. Northampton

o   Frances – married Philip Roleston, Esq.

o   Mary – died young

o   Elizabeth – died unmarried

 

Generation 3

·         Robert (1637-1666) – predeceased his father, William, so never inherited. However, he did have three sons in the next generation.

·         Gervase (1649-1715) – created Baron Pierrepont of Ardglass under the Peerage of Ireland in 1702. Since he was serving in the House of Commons at the time, he could continue to do so as his peerage was not eligible for the House of Lords.  Later also created as Baron Pierrepont of Hanslope under the Peerage of Great Britain in 1714 at which time he became a member of the House of Lords. Had no male heirs so both of these baronies became extinct when he passed away.

o   Henry – died unmarried

o   William – died young

o   George – died unmarried

o   Frances – married Henry, Earl of Ogle, afterwards Duke of Newcastle

o   Eleanor – died young

o   Margaret – died young

o   Grace – married Gilbert, Earl of Clare

o   Gertrude – married George, Viscount and afterwards Marquis of Halifax

 

Generation 4

·         Robert (1660-1682) – oldest son of Robert, inherited all his great-uncle Henry’s titles, never married

·         William (1662-1690) – second son of Robert, inherited the titles of his older brother, died of apoplexy without children

·         Evelyn (1665-1726) – third and youngest son of Robert, inherited the titles of his older brother. In 1706, created Marquess of Dorchester, a title that had been extinct since the passing of his grandfather 26 years earlier. In 1715 created Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull at which time the title of Earl of that same city was reverted, i.e. given up in exchange for the higher title.

o   Gertrude – married Charles, Lord Cheney, Viscount Newhaven

 

Generation 5

·         William (1692-1713) – at age 20 predeceased his father, but not before having two children

o   Mary – married Edward Wortley Montague, Esq.

o   Frances – married John Ereskin, late Earl of Marr.

o   Evelyn – married John, Lord Gorver

 

Generation 6

·         Evelyn (1711-1773) – succeeded his grandfather in 1726 at the age of 15, but spent the next 10 years on a “grand tour” of Europe where he was known for gambling and loose living. Died without issue at which time all his titles became extinct. He had married, but the marriage was later found to be bigamous. His nephews challenged his will, but the bigamy was found not to affect his wife’s inheritance of the property.

·         Frances (1712-1795) – younger sister of Evelyn. As a female, the only title which she would have been eligible for was the Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull as that had been created as “heir general”. But since that title had been reverted nearly 60 years prior when her grandfather became a duke, she did not inherit any titles. However, her son Charles was able to be titled in the next generation. Married Philip Meadows, son of Sir Philip Meadows.

 

Summary

Of the 23 other children in these six generations, 4 died young and 5 never married. But the other 14 all married individuals in the higher levels of society. Seven married those in the peerage (1 Duke, 1 Marquis, 3 Earls, 1 Viscount, 1 Baron/Lord). And the remaining seven married others who were notable (1 knight, 4 lawyers {Esq.), and 2 city leaders (Com.)).

 

Prior Generation and the New England Pierpont Family

What is interesting is to go one generation prior, i.e. to the father of Robert (1584-1643) above. Robert’s father was Sir Henry (1545-1609). He was one of seven children of Sir George (-1564). Of the other six children of Sir George, four were daughters (Annora, Elizabeth, Isabel, and Ann) and all of them married Commissioners (of Nottingham or Leicester) or Knights (of Derby). They were not part of a peerage family and so could not marry above them. Sir Henry’s next brother, Gervase, did not have any children. Sir Henry and Gervase were called “recusants” due to their support of the Catholics. The negative attitudes toward them became a positive when King Charles I ascended to the throne and married a Catholic. Then having been supporters, the children of Sir Henry fought for King Charles I, and this resulted in the awarding to Robert of the first peerage title in the Pierrepont family.

But Sir Henry’s youngest brother, William, did not follow his brothers in their proclamation of the Catholic faith and he chose to become what were later called Puritans and he passed this faith on to his sons. Thus, he was an outcast of the family and got the “short end of the stick” – both from an inheritance perspective, and from a religious perspective when Charles I became king. This later led to his son, James, and two of James’ sons, Robert and John, being among those to left England and went to the Massachusetts Bay Colony around 1640 where they because the progenitors of the Pierrepont/Pierpont family in New England. This is summarized in a book by Robin Brackenbury, “Brothers at War – The Story of the Pierrepont Family in the Civil War.”

 

“William and Henry Pierrepont were the sons of Robert Pierrepont and Gertrude Talbot. Robert was the son of Sir Henry Pierrepont and Frances Cavendish. In 1628 Robert was created earl of Kingston upon Hull and Henry became the Viscount Newark. In 1630 Henry married Cecilia Bayning, daughter of Viscount Bayning. In the 1630s, Henry's brother, William, was married to Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Harris. He held estates in Shropshire. In 1642 Henry took the side of King Charles I and William took the side of the Puritan controlled Parliament. Their father, Earl of Kingston was killed in 1643 and Henry became the second Earl of Kingston; shortly thereafter he was created the Marquess of Dorchester. After the fall of Charles I, Henry lived quietly in London while William lived in Nottingham, neither man taking part in Cromwell's dictatorship. After the restoration Henry received his former prominence. The children of both Henry and William married into prominent families.”

Alzheimer’s Clinical Trials

This morning I received notice of a press release about the results of a recently completed clinical trial for Alzheimer’s. As someone who is participating in a number of various studies, I was of course quite interested – especially when I found that this trial was of the same drug that I have recently agreed to participate in a clinical trial for.

Here is a link to the press release - https://investors.biogen.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lecanemab-confirmatory-phase-3-clarity-ad-study-met-primary

Here is a link to a comment on this result from the principals at Penn Medical Center where I have been participating in studies - https://pennmemorycenter.org/lecanemab/

As Dr. Wolk notes, “This is an extremely encouraging development…” And as Dr. Karlawish notes, “in the history of Alzheimer’s disease, I hope that Tuesday, September 27^th, 2022 will become one of the great events.”

While I agree with those comments, the clinical trials will continue. The one that is mentioned in this press release lasted for 18 months and showed that the drug caused slower declines. But more study is needed. The trial that I have signed up has further aspects that will be studied. Primarily, this study is looking at individuals who do not yet show any MCI (Mild Cognitive Impairment) where the one in the news release studied those who already had symptoms of Alzheimer's. But there are additional differences as well. First, the study population will be divided into two groups – one with intermediate level of the amyloid plaque and one for those with a more elevated level.  And while this first study gave the participants infusions on a bi-weekly basis, the trial that I have signed up will have a bi-weekly infusion for those with elevated plaque and monthly for those with only an intermediate level. Both options will last for four years.

[Amyloid Plaques]

 

AHEAD Study

For those who are interested, here is further information about the study that I have signed up to participate in - https://pennmemorycenter.org/research/open-research-studies/ahead/.

Right now, I am in the multi-stage qualification process. There are several aspects of this qualification process. Here is a summary from the consent form I signed this summer:

Stage 1A – blood biomarkers

This stage is for evaluation of the blood biomarkers to see if I have the APOE4 gene which is an indicator that I am susceptible for Alzheimer’s. If I did not, then I would not be eligible to move forward with the screening process, but since I am already scheduled for my 1B visit, this is confirmation that I must have the APOE4 gene. (For more info see https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/study-reveals-how-apoe4-gene-may-increase-risk-dementia)

Stage 1B – questionnaires and test of memory and thinking

This evaluates my mental skills pre-study and establishes a baseline against which future yearly tests can be compared. I’ve done these before for other studies – they are intense, but I am prepared for them.

Stage 2 – Amyloid PET scan

Looks for whether the amyloid plaques are present in the brain at the intermediate or elevated levels or if they are not present. Those with the intermediate level participate in one trial that has once-a-month infusions, those with the elevated level are in a separate trial that has twice-a-month infusions. If there are no amyloid plaques available, then the person is ineligible.

Stage 3 – learn the PET scan result and the blood biomarker result

The person is able to withdraw at this point if they desire. Otherwise, they will sign the consent form for the appropriate arm of the study.

Stage 4 – MRI Scan

Looks for any issues that might make the person ineligible. Since I’ve already had one of these for another study, I don’t anticipate any issues here.

Stage 5 – Tau PET scan and optional Lumbar puncture

Two other things that are associated with those who have Alzheimer’s. The Tau tangle does not have levels associated with it at this time, but is monitored during the study. The lumbar puncture (which I have already had for another study) tries to measure directly the level of amyloid plaques in the brain fluid and they can compare those results to the PET scan in stage 2.

 

Once I’ve gone through all the above stages (and at this point I am expecting that I will continue to qualify for the study), then the periodic infusions will take place for the next four years.

One of my initial concerns was the number of visits that this study would require me to travel to Philadelphia where the research is taking place. This has been alleviated through two different means. First, they are now offering a Lyft service so that I can ride instead of drive for all the necessary visits to Philly. Secondly, while all the stages of the testing will be in Philly as well as the first few infusions (so they can observe any side-effects if there are any), after that they will have a visiting nurse who can do the infusions in the home (this will save not only the travel, but all the time needed with an hour+ each way for just a short infusion). I’ll still have to go to Philly at least once a year, but that’s not much compared to having to do it monthly or bi-weekly.

As I noted above, I’ve already going through stage 1a and my stage 1b visit is scheduled for 3 weeks from now. I recognize that no study is without a certain amount of risk, but I believe that the risk (which they have ensured I understand) is far less that the potential benefit – perhaps for me, but even more importantly for others in the future.

 

The other studies (which are not clinical trials of drugs) are also continuing. I do one of them online every two months (Web APT). Another is annual and requires a trip to Philly for mental evaluation (ABC – Aging Brain Cohort). And I recently received an invitation for a second occurrence of the MTL (medial-temporal lobe) study when I am in Philly for the ABC study. I did this combination ABC-MTL visit last year so I’m expecting several hours of very intense mental activity for the two back-to-back. So far, I have not shown any reduced mental acuity in any of these tests. But the future is always uncertain. My father did not show any obvious symptoms until he reached his 80s. So, I will continue on.

 

Bottom line – you can pray for me as I go through this clinical trial. But also I encourage you to participate in these types of trials if you have the opportunity.

Pierpont Family Coat of Arms – Part 2

Since I published part one on this topic a few days ago, I’ve done quite a bit more research into the topic of coats of arms. There have been several legs of this research which I’d like to document here.

 

Additional Confirmation of the Pierrepont COA and the Crest

The example I gave of the full COA for Evelyn Pierrepont, Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull was published in 1764 when Evelyn was the second Duke (from 1726-1773). I recently discovered another publication from Guillam in 1724 which also had the crest of the Duke of Kingston.

[Guillam 1724]

 

This publication was during the time of the first Duke, also Evelyn (grandfather of the 2^nd Duke), who held that title from 1706-1726. Prior to 1706, he had been Earl of Kingston as well as Baron Pierrepont and Viscount Newark from 1690. As you can see here, the COA during his time also had the crest of a “lion rampant sable”.  

The Guillim publication has COAs for all the Dukes of England at the time. There are only 24 of them, giving some indication of how important Evelyn Pierrepont was in society. The writing below the COA identifies him as “The most Noble Prince Evelin Duke of Kingston, Lord Privy Seal, and Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter.”

Evelyn held the title Lord Privy Seal twice, from 1716-1719 and again from 1720-1726, one of only a few who had two terms of that title. That position is the 5^th of the Great Officers of the State, following the Lord High Steward of England, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, Lord High Treasurer of the United Kingdom, and Lord President of the Council. In the past this person was responsible for the personal (privy) seal of the King and thus would have had a lot of regular interaction with him. Evelyn served in this position under King George I. In recent years the Lord Privy Seal title is more honorary and has been given to the Leader of the House of Lords or the Leader of the House of Commons.

 

The Russell Coat of Arms

Several years ago, someone gave me a gift of a set of drink coasters which were labeled “Heraldic Coasters”. These had on them a family COA with the name “Russell” underneath.

[coaster]

The shield on the very fancy COA has a red lion on a white background (what I now know is “argent, lion rampant gules”) and a motto of “Che sera sera”. There is no crest above the shield. The label on the back of the package says, “The name Russell has been known in Ireland since the Middle Ages, and although of English origin it is now found in many parts of the country. There was never a Russell clan as such, but many individual Russells have left their mark on Irish history. Famous family members include the artist and poet George Russell, or AE.”

This is a great example of what scholars call “misappropriated coats of arms”, i.e. the practice of taking a coat of arms associated with one person with a particular surname and saying that it thus belongs to everyone with that surname. In many cases, even the COA is just made up as well.

My Russell surname has been handed down to me over several generations with the earliest ancestor I have been able to confirm as being Robert Russell who was an immigrant from Scotland to the US around 1750. He was an illiterate Scottish farmer, and certainly not the possessor of a COA. And he was not from Ireland as this “Heraldic Coaster” gives as the origin of the name.

In fact, you can find these kinds of coasters/mugs/sweatshirts, and much other merchandise available all over – and attributed not just to Ireland, but also to Scotland and England. Just a big marketing ploy to sell you merchandise, with no real genealogical connections at all!

But as you look at the hundreds of images that pop up when you type “Russell coat of arms” into a search engine, there is a similarity to them. They all have a red lion on the shield – usually standing (rampant) but sometime not. Some of the shields have a black bar across the top with three stylized shells. Those that have a crest generally have a goat. Many do not have a motto, but when they do it is “Che sera sera”.

I am well aware that this are simply a marketing ploy and that they have no real meaning to me. So these coasters sit unused in a desk drawer. But what it the basis for the design?

In searching, I have found that this plain shield with a standing red lion and a black bar with three shells is the shield of the Duke of Bedford. The first creation of that title dates back to 1414, but after several other creations, the title went extinct in 1495. The most recent creation began with the title of Baron Russell in 1539, followed by the Earl of Bedford title in 1551 and the current Duke of Bedford title in 1694. Thus, it’s been in the Russell family for over 300 years with the current Duke being the 15^th. But unless one is descended from one of that specific Russell line, any uses (such as the mention of this coaster being Irish), is definitely a misappropriation.

Interestingly, in Guillim’s book, the COA for the Duke of Bedford is just a few pages before the COA for the Duke of Kingston and is also one 24 Dukes from 1724, with the then holder being “The most Noble Prince Wriothesley Duke of Bedford” who was the 3^rd Duke.

 

Other Russell Ancestors

While my direct Russell lineage is quite definitely not traceable to the Dukes of Bedford and my coasters are a good example of misappropriate of a COA, there are other individuals in my family tree – on the Pierpont side – who carry that surname. Might they have been entitled to the use of that COA?

 

Noadiah Russell (1659-1713)

It is well documented that Joseph Pierpont, a son of the Rev. James and my great*6 grandfather, married Mary Russell, the daughter of Noadiah Russell, the pastor of the Middletown, CT, church and a contemporary and friend of the Rev. James Russell. Where did his Russell ancestors come from?

Noadiah’s father was William Russell (1611-1665). He had come to New Haven in 1639 as a ship’s carpenter. There he married Sarah Davis in 1644. Noadiah was born in 1659 and was sent by his parents to Harvard where he graduated in 1681 and began his life of service in the ministry.

There are hundreds of family trees in ancestry.com that indicate that the father of William Russell (1611-1665) was Sir William Russell (1558-1613), the 3^rd Earl of Bedford. But this makes little sense for two reasons. First, the father of a ship’s carpenter is not likely to be an Earl. And second, Sir William was only known to have had one son, Francis, born in 1587. Thus, we need to ignore all the incorrect family trees that have been proliferating.

 

Riverius Russell (1756-1834)

Much closer genealogically, and through my grandmother, Sara [Blackman] Pierpont, my great*4 grandfather, Moses Sperry, married Mary Russell, the daughter of Riverius Russell. Riverius was also from a long-time New England line of Russells and traces his ancestry back to William Russell (1605-1661) who was an immigrant from Herefordshire to Cambridge, MA. [All these William Russells are getting a little confusing, aren’t they?] But, very like the case of Noadiah’s ancestry, there are then hundreds of family trees in ancestry.com that link this William back to the Bedford Russells, albeit through several different routes.

Some say that William was the son of Lord Edward (1572-1627). But Edward died without issue, so this is obviously incorrect. Others say that William was descended from Lord Francis (1527-1585) through his son William, but that is not correct either. Finally, others say that William is the son of John Russell (1553-1584) who was the 3^rd Baron Russell. This one is possible and I am still investigating it. But not being a 1^st son, John had been bypassed with all the Earl/Duke titles and thus he was not entitled to use the Russell COA.

It seems that Americans have a penchant for wanting to link their family trees back to titled families in England. Is this like their obsession with coats of arms?!