Lord Chris Holmes Is Innocent M’Lud

Whether or not Britain’s famed paralympic swimmer has done anything or not is up to the investigative and court systems to find out as they no doubt will.

However, we can say without doubt that “Lord Chris Holmes” is entirely innocent of anything. For that title doesn’t exist, there is no one with that name. Thus innocence, obviously enough.

This used to be the sort of thing the Telegraph got right but tempus fugit and all that, the end of civilisation is nigh as we forget these distinctions:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””][/perfectpullquote]

Paralympic swimmer Lord Chris Holmes denies sexually assaulting woman in luxury London hotel

If there were a “Lord Chris Holmes” then there are two possibilities as to who it is. One is that someone, on being ennobled, peeraged, decided that their title would be “Chris Holmes”. This is not the case here. The second is that some Duke – possibly Marquis – was called Holmes. And he had a number of sons. The first son would have a subsidiary title from the family box – Earl Something, Viscount Summat perhaps. Second and subsequent sons would be “Lord “First name” “Surname”” This is how we got to “Lord Randolph Churchill” as the younger son of a Duke.

Oh and the “Lord “First name” “Surname”” is also a signifier of the title not leading to a seat in the Lords, which is why Randolph sat in the Commons.

Chris Holmes isn’t the younger son of a Duke and he also sits in the Lords. Therefore his title just isn’t going to be “Lord “First name” “Surname”” now, is it?

Actually, the title is:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Chris Holmes, Baron Holmes of Richmond[/perfectpullquote]

Tsk, I mean really, tsk. The Telegraph used to get these things right.