GEN-ROYAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-ROYAL > 1999-12 > 0945261502


From: William Addams Reitwiesner <>
Subject: Re: Fw: Spencer query
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:38:22 -0500


At 11:40 AM 12/14/1999 +0800, you wrote:
>
>
>I am trying to trace the ancestors of a person who became quite prominent in
>the history of Western Australia. Family tradition has it that he is
descended
>from the Earls of Sunderland. What I know is that
>
>A Richard Spencer is the father of
>
>Sir Richard Spencer, born 9 December 1779, died 24 July 1839
>on 13 September 1833 per the "Buffalo" he arrived in Western Australia
>where he remained. Amongst his descendants several 'appropriate' first names
>appear like 'Henry Seymour Spencer' and so on. Any assistance will be
greatly
>appreciated.

There is no article on Sir Richard in the *Dictionary of National
Biography*, but there is one in the *Australian Dictionary of Biography*,
vol. II [1967], p. 465, where he is described as the "only son of Richard
Spencer, a London merchant".

One of Sir Richard's daughters married George Egerton-Warburton. These
Egerton-Warburtons are covered in *Burke's Colonial Gentry*, *Burke's
Landed Gentry*, and *Burke's Peerage* (under Egerton Bt.). In all cases,
when the Egerton-Warburton=Spencer marriage is mentioned, the Burke's
editors do not include a cross-reference to where these Spencers are
treated. That, plus the fact that many years ago I traced the (legitimate)
patrilineal descendants of the first Baron Spencer of Wormleighton, and
that these descendants do not include Sir Richard, leads me to conclude
that if Sir Richard is of the same patrilineal descent as the Earls of
Sunderland then the connection is either (a) very distant, or (b)
illegitimate.


William Addams Reitwiesner

This thread: