
Lord Howe
#1
Posted 19 November 2002 - 03:03
Advertisement
#2
Posted 19 November 2002 - 05:47
#3
Posted 19 November 2002 - 07:38
Originally posted by Hans Etzrodt
MOTOR RACING by The Right Hon. The Earl Howe, P.C., C.B.E. (Editor), a book published 1939 in London and part of The Lonsdale Library series of sports in the world.
Lord Howe's contribution to the book is a chapter on Continental Circuits.
#4
Posted 19 November 2002 - 08:39
Nevertheless there is a good summary of Howe's origins and career in David Venable's 1984 book The Racing Fifteen-Hundreds, Transport Bookman 1984. There is also a brief potted biography in the George Monkhouse/Roland King-Farlow 'GRAND PRIX RACING FACTS & FIGURES FOULIS in the three editions of this book, plus his exploits with the Delage and others in John Dugdale's super 1977 tome 'GREAT MOTOR SPORT of the Thirties, Wilton House Gentry. Inevitably he features in the various Bira books written by Chula and reprinted after WW2 by Foulis whilst the various classic car mags must have featured him at least once over the last 20-25 years.
I hope this helps.
#5
Posted 26 November 2002 - 09:53
#6
Posted 26 November 2002 - 13:37
#7
Posted 26 November 2002 - 15:14
Thoroughbred & Classic Cars, April 1974, "Men & Machines - Earl Howe"
Old Motor (New Series), September 1981, "Earl Howe"
Motor Sport, June 1998, "Earl Howe - The Grand Old Man of Motor Racing"
Rivers Fletcher also mentions him a lot in his book "Mostly Motor Racing".
#8
Posted 26 November 2002 - 15:25
PdeRL
#9
Posted 26 November 2002 - 17:46
I have never stirred myself to double-check through Burke's Peerage, but if he was indeed "Edward Richard Assheton", why was he always - as in always - addressed by his chums as 'Francis', and is today remembered by the survivors as 'Francis' Howe????
Just another of those irritating questions one means to ask but never gets round to tidying away... But that was before Leif Snellmann - with whom I will get even one day - introduced me to the magic of TNF.
DCN
#10
Posted 26 November 2002 - 19:04
I have his given names as Francis Richard Henry Penn, which I think - though can't now be sure - came from Burke's
I wonder if one of us is a generation out?
#11
Posted 26 November 2002 - 20:23
DCN
#12
Posted 26 November 2002 - 20:47
It's often quite puzzling with British Lords, Earls and Viscounts. For me he is Francis Howe, which, of course, would better fit into David's information. Doug, can you maybe explain why he called himself Lord "Howe"?
#13
Posted 26 November 2002 - 21:09
Originally posted by Udo K.
Georgano in his encyclopaedia also gives Edward, Richard Assheton etc.
It's often quite puzzling with British Lords, Earls and Viscounts. For me he is Francis Howe, which, of course, would better fit into David's information. Doug, can you maybe explain why he called himself Lord "Howe"?
Peers of the Realm are always referred to as "Lord", with the exception of Dukes (both Royal and otherwise) who are always referred to as "The Duke of XXX".
No-one is actually a "Lord" any more than he is a "Sir" (A knight or baronet).
Similarly, a brother of an hereditary peer's son (if the peer be the rank of Viscount or above) would be known as "Lord (e.g.) Peter Wimsey" - addressed as "Lord Peter" and not "Lord Wimsey". This is known as a courtesy title; his younger siblings would be addressed as "The Honourable xxx xxx"
Usually, a senior peer's eldest son, will have a title by virtue of his position: e.g. The Duke of Marlborough's son is known as The Marquis of Blandford. (To complicate things further, usually, but not always, a Marquis is the son of a duke, whilst a Marquess is a peer in his own right).
Finally, the ranks in ascending order are: Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess, Duke, Royal Duke. All Life Peers are Barons.
Earl Howe was not Francis Howe - Howe was not his "surname; this was Assheton; he was Lord Howe! (a.k.a., formally, as Earl Howe). Simnilarly the Duke of Norfolk's surname is Fitzalan-Howard; however, sometimes peers with names of counties (like Norfolk) might be refferred to as e.g. ~"John Norfolk"!!
PdeRL
#14
Posted 26 November 2002 - 21:22
further to my previous posting, I should add that there is also a constitutional aspect to this point.
As an hereditary peer, Lord Howe, was entitled to sit in the House of Lords, which apart from being our upper house of parliament, is also the highest court in the land.
His rank was Earl, but he was entitled to sit in the Lords (where actually ranks of the peerage do not count).
Sadly this splendid 800-year-old institution, latterly always moderate in its judgements, has been destroyed by our philistine prime minister.
PdeRL
#15
Posted 26 November 2002 - 22:39
His father was the Earl of March, his grandfather the Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
When his grandfather died and his father inherited the title of Duke of Richmond and Gordon, Charles - the former Lord Settrington - became the Earl of March.
When Charles's first son was born, the little boy became Lord Settrington.
Oh yes, and the family name - short of the titles - is Gordon-Lennox.
As Charles Gordon-Lennox/Settrington/March-etc-etc-Ptang-Ptang-Oh-lay-Biscuit-Barrel admitted to me one day - "...for the first 30 or 40 years it is quite confusing...you wake up sometimes wondering just who the hell you are today...".
Which is why us common soldiery, wiv christian and surname demanding only seven letters, have quite a simple time, really... and why explaining 'the system' to non-Brits is rather like trying to explain the laws and ethos of cricket...
DCN
#16
Posted 27 November 2002 - 01:27
#17
Posted 27 November 2002 - 10:38
Having seen HMS Nottingham on her heavy-lift lighter about to be sent home in disgrace from Sydney Harbour - it's difficult to break the habit of bumping into things...
Admiral Lord Howe - 'Black Dick' to his men - gave Frenchie a bloody nose at Quiberon Bay 1759 and captured six of their ships and sank a couple more in the sea battle known as The Glorious First of June in 1794. He was already 68 years old at that time. In those splendidly politically incorrect days he was a personality to celebrate. Hurrah!
DCN
#18
Posted 27 November 2002 - 10:44
Amen.Originally posted by Doug Nye
. In those splendidly politically incorrect days he was a personality to celebrate. Hurrah!
DCN
So would I be right in inferring that someone like John Prescott or Ken Livingstone would be less likely to qualify?

PdeRL
#19
Posted 27 November 2002 - 13:38
Advertisement
#20
Posted 02 December 2002 - 10:47
I have just learned that a book in in preparation as we speak
It also seems there are not one but two Wimille books in the pipeline, both in French, and one covering Trintignant as well
#21
Posted 02 December 2002 - 12:23
Originally posted by David McKinney
It also seems there are not one but two Wimille books in the pipeline, both in French, and one covering Trintignant as well
In French only?
Bummer! We don't even have the Robert Benoist book translated into English yet.
I can read French a bit, but it's a struggle. Should have paid more attention when at school.
#22
Posted 02 December 2002 - 16:30
#23
Posted 02 December 2002 - 17:08
Originally posted by Dennis David
Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquises, Dukes, Royal Dukes ... keeping track of chassis numbers seem simple in comparison!


PdeRL
#24
Posted 02 December 2002 - 18:32
Paul
#25
Posted 02 December 2002 - 18:42

#26
Posted 02 December 2002 - 19:18
Originally posted by Bladrian
I have a friend called Duke Carver - hails from Pietermaritzburg, known colloquially as Sleepy Hollow. If he ever became a peer of the realm, would he then be known as Duke Duke, or Lord Duke?![]()

Well, were he to be granted a dukedom, then he could probably choose his title; he might be known as Duke Carver, The Duke of Sleepy Hollow!
PdeRL
#27
Posted 02 December 2002 - 19:42
And bishops, who are still entitled to sit with the Lords (the Lords Spiritual = bishops; Lords Temporal = Tony's cronies, the way it's going), take their Latinized episcopal sees as their surname. Hence the look of consternation on a receptionist's face when the Archbishop of York, dressed in full regalia, signed into a hotel with a woman as 'David Ebor & Mrs Hope'.Originally posted by VAR1016
Earl Howe was not Francis Howe - Howe was not his "surname; this was Assheton; he was Lord Howe! (a.k.a., formally, as Earl Howe). Simnilarly the Duke of Norfolk's surname is Fitzalan-Howard; however, sometimes peers with names of counties (like Norfolk) might be refferred to as e.g. ~"John Norfolk"!!
PdeRL
#28
Posted 02 December 2002 - 20:05

#29
Posted 02 December 2002 - 20:35
Kind regards
Michael
#30
Posted 02 December 2002 - 20:37
DCN
#31
Posted 02 December 2002 - 23:20
Originally posted by 917
Is Lord Howe (The Right Hon. The Earl Howe, P.C., C.B.E) the same title as Lord Howe (The Rt. Hon The Lord Howe of Aberavon, PC, QC)? Why have some Lords their surname in their title (Lord Howe of Aberavon, formerly Geoffrey Howe) and others not (Lord Nuffield, formerly William Morris)?
Kind regards
Michael
Yes, this is where it gets tricky.
The erstwhile SirGeoffrey Howe, a minister in Mrs Thatcher's government, was raised to the peerage (i.e. "kicked upstairs") and became a life peer - Lord Howe of Aberavon. It is possible that he and Earl Howe are related. I once had a TERRIBLE girlfriend named Sharon Howe; I sincerely hope that she was not related to Earl Howe!
A life peer is really not the same thing at all. And indeed it used to be said that there is a difference between peers whose titles originated before the restoration (1660) and those from afterwards. Pre-restoration peerages include the Dukes of Norfolk and Northumberland.
Lastly, I suppose I should add that although traditionally, peerages are passed through the male line, there are exceptions. I believe that the Countess of Mar (Countess is the female equivalent of Earl) is the premier peeress; her title dates from 1216 and may be passed through the female line.
[Edit] To answer your question, in William Morris's time, a peerage was an hereditary peerage, and so Morris chose the title of Lord Nuffield - I cannot recall what his rank was - i.e. whether he was a Baron or Viscount; I am sure that he was not as grand as an Earl, a title reserved in those times for retiring Prime Ministers. Incidentally, at the end of the war, Churchill was offered the title of Duke of Dover, but he declined. And Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister in the 1950s and early '60s was offered an Earldom but declined on the grounds that he had "No desire to join the ranks of those who had oppressed his ancestors". Later he changed his mind and became Earl of Stockton, a title that was inherited by his son.
PdeRL
PdeRL
#32
Posted 02 December 2002 - 23:50
"L was a lady advancing in Age,
Who drove in a carriage and six,
With a couple of Footmen, a Coachman and Page,
who were all of them regular bricks.
If the coach ran away or was smashed by a Dray,
Or got into collisions and blocks,
The Page with a courtesy rare for his years,
Would leap to the ground with inspiriting cheers,
While the Footman allayed her legitimate fears,
And the Coachman sat tight on his box.
At night as they met round an excellent meal,
They would take it in turns to observe:
"What a Lady indeed!... what a presence to
feel!..."
"What a woman to worship and serve!..."
But perhaps, the most poignant of all their delights
Was to stand in a rapturous dream,
When she spoke to them kindly on Saturday nights
And said "They deserved her esteem."
MORAL
Now observe the Reward of these dutiful lives:
At the end of their loyal career
They each had a lodge at the end of the drives,
And she left them a hundred a year.
Remember from this to be properly vexed
When the newspaper editors say
That "The type of society shown in the Text
Is rapidly passing away."
From "A moral alphabet" - Hilaire Belloc.
PdeRL
#33
Posted 03 December 2002 - 00:01
Originally posted by VAR1016
...Sadly this splendid 800-year-old institution, latterly always moderate in its judgements, has been destroyed by our philistine prime minister.
PdeRL
True!
#34
Posted 03 December 2002 - 00:03
Originally posted by Ian McKean
True!



PdeRL
#35
Posted 03 December 2002 - 00:31
Originally posted by Ian McKean
True!
Presumably Mr McKean and Mr VAR1016 think the rot started with the 1832 Reform Bill.
Or as Queen victoria said much later "The queen thinks that if this act is passed we shall all go sliding down into Democaracy" (quoted by Pomeroy to keep it on topic.)
#36
Posted 03 December 2002 - 00:37
Originally posted by Roger Clark
Presumably Mr McKean and Mr VAR1016 think the rot started with the 1832 Reform Bill.
Or as Queen victoria said much later "The queen thinks that if this act is passed we shall all go sliding down into Democaracy" (quoted by Pomeroy to keep it on topic.)
No, that's not what I wrote; my principal problem is with BLAIR. However I would agree that the rot started with the Parliament acts of 1910/11; they did not help my cause.
As for Democracy, I'm not really a fan; I simply am unable to accept that a football ("kickball") hooligan's vote should count the same as mine.
So convince me otherwise...
PdeRL
#37
Posted 03 December 2002 - 07:18
#38
Posted 03 December 2002 - 07:41
...your friend Gordon
That's hysterical Doug, must have though that Gordon was your friend's butt brother so to speak ...

#39
Posted 03 December 2002 - 09:58
The latter - by definition - included as many good people as it did total dross, but the one thing they all had in common was the deception and self-projection inseparable from political ambition...producing a majority who have been inherently untrustworthy to the core.
Born peers might range from the gifted and capable to the utterly witless and plumb certifiable - but they certainly offered a better cross-section of humanity. This has all changed now with the proliferation of elevated former politicos....who have been kicked upstairs..
'Our' Earl Howe was a Naval officer who did more than his bit for his nation and for his people - and who certainly did more than his bit for his chosen sport. He was an impressive figure - and a popular one. He was a very accident prone driver - particularly on the public road - but he is properly recalled with respect...
DCN
Advertisement
#40
Posted 03 December 2002 - 18:13
Since the ancestors of the aristocracy were able to struggle to the top of the pile the chances are that their descendants have inherited some of that talent. And they have all had a good education, the best that money can buy.
And as has been pointed out, the bulk of them have accumulated experience in different fields, particularly law, that cannot be matched by the elected members of the Commons
This is why the standard of debate in the Lords is generally acknowledged to be higher than in the Commons.
If any further proof is needed it is surely provided by the results of the Lords vs Commons races in identical Ford Mexicos at Brands (do they still hold these events?).
I must add that I am not an aristocrat. I merely feel that my interests (and the interests of all who support the democratic process and the freedoms that most of us aspire to) are more likely to be secured by a strong House of Lords.
PS
I should add that the bloodline of the English aristocracy was enriched in the last century by the practice of marrying rich American heiresses. Again, a pool of talent, as their ancestors had been unusually successful in business.
#41
Posted 03 December 2002 - 19:33
Originally posted by Doug Nye
There has been an extremely common-sensical attitude to our House of Lords for decades which held that its majority selection by birth - i.e. including a broad cross-section of bright people, dumb people, really stupid people, folk with detailed specialist interests (from brain surgery to Chairmanship of the Flat Earth Society), eccentrics, loonies, caring people, sadists, masochists, almost every hue and brew bar communists - actually provided a better chance of sensible Government than our elected House of Commons.
The latter - by definition - included as many good people as it did total dross, but the one thing they all had in common was the deception and self-projection inseparable from political ambition...producing a majority who have been inherently untrustworthy to the core.
Born peers might range from the gifted and capable to the utterly witless and plumb certifiable - but they certainly offered a better cross-section of humanity. This has all changed now with the proliferation of elevated former politicos....who have been kicked upstairs..
'Our' Earl Howe was a Naval officer who did more than his bit for his nation and for his people - and who certainly did more than his bit for his chosen sport. He was an impressive figure - and a popular one. He was a very accident prone driver - particularly on the public road - but he is properly recalled with respect...
DCN
A better cross-section of humanity .... yep, that sums it up. Periodically, there have been very good examples of this principle in action - every time there is a war. The quality of the conscripted armies have, historically, been considerably better than the standing, volunteer forces. Fact of life. Thus - the lords would be the conscriptees, having been drafted into political duty whether they wanted to be there or not, and the politicians are in government by choice. There's a lesson there, somewhere ......
#42
Posted 03 December 2002 - 20:56
Including the parents of a certain chap called Churchill.Originally posted by Ian McKean
PS
I should add that the bloodline of the English aristocracy was enriched in the last century by the practice of marrying rich American heiresses. Again, a pool of talent, as their ancestors had been unusually successful in business.
#43
Posted 03 December 2002 - 21:02
#44
Posted 04 December 2002 - 22:26
Too many appeasers there - the aristos certainly did not support WSC. Thank the Lord he prevailed with the help of Lib/Lab.
#45
Posted 04 December 2002 - 23:16
Originally posted by David J Jones
Too many appeasers there - the aristos certainly did not support WSC. Thank the Lord he prevailed with the help of Lib/Lab.
A bit of a generalisation I think.
Lord Lovat springs to mind...
PdeRL
#46
Posted 04 December 2002 - 23:42
Originally posted by David J Jones
Too many appeasers there - the aristos certainly did not support WSC. Thank the Lord he prevailed with the help of Lib/Lab.
You're not thinking of Lord Hawhaw are you?
#47
Posted 05 December 2002 - 00:15
Originally posted by Ian McKean
You're not thinking of Lord Hawhaw are you?

And many of the Long-Range Desert Group and Commandos were aristocrats too
PdeRL
#48
Posted 05 December 2002 - 14:25
The man known in racing circles as "Lord Howe" was ...
'FRANCIS RICHARD HENRY PENN, 5th Earl Howe , P.C., C.B.E., V.D., educ. Eton, and Ch. Ch. Oxford, Cdre. R.N.V.R., a junior Lord of the Treasury (unpaid) 1924-29, a Trustee of Imperial War Museum from 1925, Pres. R.N.V.R. Club and British Racing Drivers' Club, Chm. Royal Nat. Life Boat Instn., Vice-Pres. Commn. Sportif Internationale Competitions Cttee., R.A.C., Assist. Gunnery Officer, H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth 1914-19, Senior Inspector Degaussing in World War II, M.P. for S. Div. of Battersea 1918-29, A.D.C. (R.N.V.R.) to H.M. KING GEORGE V 1925-28, sworn of the Privy Council of Great Britain 5 July, 1929, b. 1 May, 1884, m. 1stly, 28 Oct. 1907 (m. diss. by div. 1937), Mary (d. 1 Sept. 1962), only dau. of Col. Hon. Montagu Curzon, son of 1st Earl Howe, and had issue,
1. EDWARD RICHARD ASSHETON PENN, 6th and present Earl.
...
His Lordship d. 26 July, 1964, and was s. by his only son.'
(Burke's Peerage, 105th ed., 1970 - which just happens to be available here in our local library - p. 1389.)
Apparently father and son were confused at times!
PS: The 5th Earl's second child, Georgiana Mary, married in 1935 a man not unknown in racing circles pre-war: 'Lieut. Home Ronald Archibald Kidston, R.N., yr. son of late Capt. Archibald Glen Kidston. J.P.' - a sometimes Bugatti and Mercedes racer, I would think; his older brother was, of course, Bentley boy Glen Kidston ...
#49
Posted 05 December 2002 - 17:09
His son Simon Kidston is well known in the historic-car auction business: he is president of Bonhams (Europe) SA
#50
Posted 05 December 2002 - 21:51
You stated 'You're not thinking of Lord Hawhaw are you?' I can answer most certainly not. The facts of the period between May'40 and September'42 are beginning to come to the surface. I believe you will be shocked in future years as they become known.
As shocked as I was in the mid '70s when we learned about how much we knew of German military plans from 1940 onwards (WSC's Golden Goose)