John Wingfield Digby

John Kenelm Digby Wingfield Digby (2 September 1859 – 25 December 1904) was an English landowner and Conservative member of parliament. His name is often given as Wingfield-Digby, but the family does not use the hyphen.

Life
Memorial to Digby in Sherborne Abbey

Wingfield Digby was born at Blythe Hall, Coleshill, Warwickshire, the son of Captain John Digby Wingfield Digby and Maria Madan. A Justice of the Peace, he lived at Coleshill Park, Warwickshire, and Sherborne Castle, Dorset, another family seat.

First elected at a by-election in Mid Somerset in March 1885, Wingfield Digby's seat was abolished with effect from the election of December 1885. He went on to represent North Dorset between the election of 1892 and his death in 1904.[1]

On 13 December 1883 Wingfield Digby married firstly Georgiana Rosamund Hewitt, a daughter of James Hewitt, 4th Viscount Lifford, and Lydia Lucy Wingfield Digby, in County Donegal. On 12 December 1888, his father died, and he inherited landed properties. In 1890 he married secondly Charlotte Kathleen Digby, a daughter of William John Digby and Sara Rebecca Le Poer Trench, at Paddington.[1]

With his first wife, Wingfield Digby had three children, Lydia Mary (1884–1887), Frederick James Bosworth (born 1885) and Georgina Rosamund Lettice (1887–1888). With his second wife, he had a further five children, Kenelm Essex Digby Bosworth (1891–1972), Kathleen Venetia (1892–1982), Dorothy Charlotte Edith (1894–1918), John Reginald (1896–1988), and Robert Almarus Wingfield Digby (1901–1974).[1]

Notes
  1. Burke's Landed Gentry vol. 1 (1965), p. 207
gollark: If your government *is allowed to do that sort of thing*, then given that people are terrible it will inevitably be expanded to cover stuff which is Clearly Immoral™.
gollark: If they want to go through it, sure?
gollark: > i'd support banning it straight through, independent of any mechanisms, as peer-reviewed research has showed it's shitIf you go around banning it, though, *there is clearly a way your government can ban that stuff*, hence meaning there's a mechanism for and/or support for it. And that's bad.
gollark: If there was a mechanism in place to stop people doing that sort of only-self-harming-maybe stuff, which there is now, it *would* (and *has*) been affected by political pressure.
gollark: Thing is, this mechanism for banning things would be controlled by a *government* or something, which means that when a sufficient mass of people complain that something is Clearly Immoral™ (see: homosexuality, drugs, whatever else) it would be banned.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.