SEYMOUR, William (1652-71)

SEYMOUR, William (1652–71)

styled 1654-60 Ld. Beauchamp; suc. grandfa. 24 Oct. 1660 (a minor) as 3rd duke of SOMERSET

Never sat.

b. 17 Apr. 1652, o. s. of Henry Seymour (d. 1654), styled Ld. Beauchamp, and Mary Capell (d.1715), da. of Arthur Capell†, Bar. Capell of Hadlam, Herts. educ. L. Inn 1671. unm. d. 12 Dec. 1671; will 10 Dec., pr. 14 Dec. 1671.1

Recorder, Lichfield 1667–d.2

Associated with: Tottenham Lodge, Great Bedwyn, Wilts.; Worcester House, London.

Likeness: engraving, G. Vertue, after Sir P. Lely, NPG 29463.3

On the death of his father on 30 Mar. 1654 Seymour became heir to his grandfather William Seymour, marquess of Hertford, and ultimately to the dukedom of Somerset. Lord Beauchamp, his sister, Lady Elizabeth Seymour, and their mother all lived with Hertford until his mother remarried in August 1657. Her new husband was Henry Somerset, styled Lord Herbert, the future 3rd marquess of Worcester and duke of Beaufort, whose father, Edward Somerset, 2nd marquess of Worcester, was the rival claimant to the Somerset dukedom. Almost immediately Hertford made a new will in an attempt to ensure that his grandson and the Seymour patrimony would remain as far as possible in the hands of his wife, the marchioness of Hertford, supported by trustees who included her sons-in-law Thomas Wriothesely, 4th earl of Southampton, and Heneage Finch, 3rd earl of Winchilsea.4

In September 1660 Hertford secured a private act of Parliament establishing his claim as duke of Somerset. He therefore died at the end of October as 2nd duke of Somerset, and William Seymour succeeded as 3rd duke. At the death of the old duke, the new duke’s mother appealed to the king in an attempt to know why his grandmother retained custody of her son, or ‘permit her to recover his guardianship by law’. In response, it was explained that the duke had been ‘willing for his grandson and heir to remain under the tuition of his mother, only so long as she remained a widow’ and that, upon her marriage with Lord Herbert, he had obtained a promise from the king to grant him, as far as he could, the wardship of his heir. He had bequeathed a large property to the marchioness, on condition of her retaining the wardship of the heir. The whole estate was burdened with debt, but the marchioness was willing to allow the proceeds to go to discharging the debts, and to educate her grandson at her own expense.5

The scene now shifted to Parliament and the bill to abolish the court of wards. In December the dowager duchess petitioned for a clause to allow the king to grant the wardship in this particular case; Lady Herbert counter-petitioned.6 When the dowager duchess’s attempt failed she seems to have abandoned the duke and his sister to their mother in ‘a rage’ that ‘the act concerning the court of wards’ was passed.7 However, the key issue of the old duke’s debts, estimated at over £20,000, remained to be contested.8 The dowager duchess, armed with the will, wished to pay off her husband’s debts with the proceeds of the estate devised to her in trust, as well as to protect the interests of her two unmarried children, Lord John Seymour, the future 4th duke of Somerset, and Lady Jane Seymour. Lady Herbert, on the other hand, sought to keep the estate for her son, and possibly to use the surplus for her own ends.9

In an attempt to sort out the tangled finances of the family, one of the old duke’s trustees, Sir Orlando Bridgeman‡, drafted a bill which was introduced into the Lords on 24 Mar. 1662 as a bill for making provision for the speedy payment of the debts of the late duke of Somerset. It received a second reading on the following day, but opposition from the dowager duchess helped to ensure that it was never reported from committee. Its main purpose seems to have been to ‘join the whole estate of the old duke together and enable trustees to pay the debts out of the entailed estate as well as the trust’, as the only way ‘to preserve the family’.10 Its failure meant that Somerset’s mother was left to administer the estate: in ten years she collected £44,792 while disbursing £32,921, which included her jointure of £1,600 per annum.11

Somerset spent his teenage years with his mother at Badminton and Worcester House in London. However, the young duke appears to have been impatient to secure his independence, declaring that he would ‘remove to Tottenham the day after he should come of age’.12 By the spring of 1667 his presence in London society was evident. In late May 1667 he was in London with his step-father, now the marquess of Worcester, where he ‘promises much in his looks and courage’.13 Samuel Pepys‡ referred to him as ‘a very pretty young man’ and another observer later commented that he was ‘a youth of great beauty and hopes’.14

In July 1668 a marriage was under discussion between Somerset and the sister of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, but these plans never came to fruition.15 In April 1669, his uncle Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, told Worcester that William Russell, 5th earl (later duke) of Bedford, had ‘with much respect received the proposal of a treaty for the marriage’ of Somerset with his daughter Lady Diana Russell, who had £11,000 in ready money, £2,000 in jewels and a revenue of £1,400 a year; again, nothing came of it.16 Somerset was next linked with Elizabeth Wriothesley, the young widow of Josceline Percy, 5th earl of Northumberland. Her step-mother, the countess of Southampton, was also Somerset’s aunt, and she was keen on the match as early as July 1670 because of the ‘affection he has formerly had for her’, and promised to promote it, although by the end of October she feared that ‘if I should speak of marriage it would be one way to lose my interest’.17 Evidently, having ‘made his address’ to her, he was rebuffed, possibly on the grounds of age.18 Sir Robert Southwell‡ later noted that Somerset had declared ‘he should die because my Lady Northumberland refused him’.19

Somerset had been ‘let go out of his mother’s constant care and inspection to come up to court the Countess of Northumberland’, which allegedly brought him into the company of a group of ‘young men’ who apparently introduced him to ‘liberties before unknown to him’.20 In February 1671 he was reportedly dancing at court and frequenting a ‘scandalous’ house near Whetstone Park, where he was said to have been involved with Monmouth, Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, and Robert Constable, 3rd Viscount Dunbar [S], in the killing of the beadle Peter Vernell, although some reports do not mention him, at least one exonerated him and no pardon was issued to him.21

Somerset died at Worcester House, London, on 12 Dec. 1671, ‘a person every way so healthy, vigorous and young’ but nonetheless ‘hurried away in five days’ time’.22 Some attributed his distemper, which was ‘bleeding at all the passages of his body, which could not be stopped’, to ‘a great debauch of drinking he had been at a few nights before.23 His ‘violent malignant fever’ was originally diagnosed as measles or smallpox, ‘but there never appeared any evident signs of either, so that most now think that if any of that numerous company of doctors that attended had prevailed to have let him blood it had saved his life’.24 Sir Ralph Verney‡ concurred: the smallpox ‘never came out, he bled so much at the nose, and by urine, that ’tis thought he had not an ounce of blood left in his body’ when he died.25

Somerset’s body was conveyed from London via Reading to Great Bedwyn, where he was buried on 20 December.26 In his brief will he bequeathed his ‘goods, chattels and personal estate’ to his mother, the marchioness of Worcester, his executor. The peerage passed to his father’s youngest brother, Lord John Seymour, 4th duke of Somerset.

A.C./S.N.H.

  • 1 TNA, PROB 11/337.
  • 2 VCH Staffs. xiv. 81.
  • 3 Wilts. Arch. Mag. xviii. 1.
  • 4 PROB 11/302.
  • 5 CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 380.
  • 6 HMC 7th Rep. 138–9.
  • 7 WSHC, Ailesbury mss 1300/710.
  • 8 HMC Bath, iv. 354.
  • 9 M. McClain, Beaufort: The Duke and His Duchess, 57–60.
  • 10 HMC 7th Rep. 164; WSHC, Ailesbury mss 1300/710.
  • 11 Wilts. Arch. Mag. xcvi. 100.
  • 12 Ibid.
  • 13 Bodl. Carte 222, ff. 154–5.
  • 14 Pepys Diary, viii. 243; HMC 6th Rep. 368.
  • 15 Add. 36916, f. 107.
  • 16 WSHC, Ailesbury mss 1300/251.
  • 17 Bath mss at Longleat, Seymour pprs. 6, ff. 173–9.
  • 18 Durham UL, Cosin letter bk. 5b, no. 98; HMC 6th Rep. 368.
  • 19 Add. 61486, f. 19.
  • 20 HMC 6th Rep. 368.
  • 21 HMC Rutland, ii. 23; POAS, i. 172–3; Bodl. Carte 81, f. 315.
  • 22 WSHC, Arundell of Wardour mss 2667/20/1.
  • 23 Add. 36916, f. 235.
  • 24 HMC 6th Rep. 368.
  • 25 Verney ms mic. 636/24, Sir R. to E. Verney, 14 Dec. 1671.
  • 26 Bulstrode Pprs. 212; Wilts Arch. Mag. xv. 206–7.