Inheritance FAQs (or, how to disinherit a duke)
I have just read a review of a British-set histrom. The hero is a duke, but he has a problem: the conditions of the title stipulate that if he isn’t married by the age of thirty, he will be stripped of the dukedom and it will pass to the next heir. Great romance set-up, right?
No. Oh God, no.
There are historical realities you can muck about with, tons of them. Have a zillion dukes by all means. Let them marry governesses and plucky flower girls, fine. These things are wildly implausible, but this is historical romance, and we’re here to play.
And then there are things that you cannot mess with, because they don’t play with the world, they break it. Chief amongst these in British aristocracy romance would be, er, destroying the entire system of British aristocracy. Which is what this plot does.
The point of a system of primogeniture—the whole, sole, single, solitary purpose of it—is to establish that nobility is bestowed by birth. The monarch can bestow a title on a commoner because of their merit on the battlefield/skill in the sack, but once it is granted, it operates under the rules. Nobody ever gets to decide who will inherit their title—not the monarch, nobody. It goes to the first in line: end of story. And once a peerage is bestowed it cannot be removed by anything less than an Act of Parliament or Royal prerogative. Certainly not by a previous holder’s whim.
If inherited titles can be given or withheld on any other basis, if you start asking “Does the holder meet basic standards?” or “But is this really the best person for the job?”, the whole system falls apart. It is infinitely better for the aristocratic system that a chinless idiot should make an absolute mess of his earldom than that the right of firstborn nobility should ever be questioned.
Hence this isn’t a matter of suspending disbelief / plot implausibility: it destroys the entire house of cards. Allow me to quote GK Chesterton:
Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it’s only incredible. But I’m much more certain it didn’t happen than that Parnell’s ghost didn’t appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand.
A duke marrying a lowly chimney-sweep’s daughter is merely implausible. But a duke whose title can be removed if he doesn’t meet a certain standard of behaviour, or a nobleman who can disinherit his older son and bestow the title on his second? That violates the laws of the aristocratic primogeniture-based world you’re writing in.
Some readers won’t notice of course. But many, even those who aren’t versed in the specifics of those laws, will pick up that you neither know nor care to know about the world you’re writing. And that does rather raise the question, why bother?
***
Herewith some Inheritance FAQs for UK historical romance authors. See this other incredibly long post for more on getting titles right.
Can my bastard hero (the illegitimate kind of bastard) inherit his father’s title?
Not in England, possibly in Scotland.
A bastard (born outside wedlock) cannot inherit his father’s title or any property entailed to it. He could be raised to the peerage, i.e. given his own title, by the monarch, but he can’t inherit one because that would break the system of primogeniture. A title could fall into abeyance (stand vacant while waiting for someone to claim it) and potentially then be awarded to the bastard son by the monarch, but it would not be in his father’s power to leave it in his will.
In England a bastard cannot be legitimised by the marriage of his parents unless your book is set after 1926, when the law was changed to retroactively legitimise children if their parents married (as long as neither parent was married to someone else at the time of the birth). The legitimised son of a peer is not entitled to inherit the peerage, though he would be able to use a courtesy title if one was available.
However, if a Scottish bastard hero’s parents married as above, he would be legitimised and able to inherit the title, as that has been Scottish law for ages.
Can my hero renounce his title? Can he nobly give it to his cousin instead?
Not before 1963 but see below, and he can’t ‘give’ it to anyone.
When a peer dies, his heir claims the title by making a petition to the Crown, giving his claim in detail. The heir can use the title while waiting for the formal approval to be granted (start calling himself Earl of Bingley) but it’s not actually his until it’s granted. Hence you could have two rival claimants walking around London both calling themselves Lord Bingley, to everyone’s embarrassment.
The petition is reviewed and, if straightforward, presented to the monarch for rubber-stamping. However, if there are complications, the petition goes to the Committee for Privileges. While this is happening, anyone else who believes they have a claim can petition the House of Lords to have it heard.
Let us say the time and place of Lord Bingley’s marriage to his housemaid are shrouded in mystery, but they lived as a married couple and have an acknowledged son, John. When Lord Bingley dies John petitions the Crown for the title. He can’t give details of his parents’ marriage, so the petition is referred to the Committee for Privileges. Meanwhile his cousin Peter comes forward to claim that Lord Bingley wasn’t legally married and that the title should instead come to him. The whole thing then gets thrashed out in the Lords, whose decision is final.
If John doubts his own claim to the title but has no proof either way, he can decline to make a petition to the Crown, and then the title would simply lie in abeyance until his death, at which point Peter could petition for it. Or if the title has been granted to John already, he can refuse to use it and call himself Mr. But while John lives, the only way for Peter or anyone else to be Lord Bingley would be for John to be conclusively proven illegitimate before the title was granted.
The only way you can mess around with renouncing a title is with an heir who isn’t generally known to exist. Let’s say Lord March was a bigamist, has a son Terence by his first marriage who lives quietly in a village, but as far as the world is concerned, his son James by the second, bigamous marriage is his heir. While this remains secret, James and Terence can decide between themselves if Terence is going to lie low or if James is going to nobly declare himself illegitimate–or indeed knowingly lie to the House of Lords to claim the title. But this entirely depends on Terence’s identity remaining a secret. If it becomes known to the Committee of Privileges, only Terence will be awarded the title, and John is out whatever happens.
NB: It was not possible for a peer to disclaim his title until 1963 when the law was changed. A disclaimed title lies unused until the former holder dies and then inheritance operates as normal.
Can my heroine inherit a title of her own?
Depends.
English titles usually descend down the direct male line. For many titles it is specified that the title passes to “the heirs male of [the holder’s] body”, i.e. legitimate sons only. If you run out of legitimate sons, the title goes into abeyance.
However, some titles are deliberately created with a special remainder allowing it to pass to women/down the female line. Many more Scottish titles than English are created this way. And lots of the older English titles descend in fee simple, meaning the title can go to a female heir, or to other relatives if the line of descent has died out, without going into abeyance. These are almost all baronies or earldoms. Where an English title is in fee simple, sons have precedence over daughters.
Take the earldom of Polkington. The earl is called Alan, and has children Lady Bertha, Charles and David, in that order. Alan’s younger brother is Eric.
In the heirs male system, Charles is heir, with David next in line. If both of them die the title falls into abeyance. Eric can then petition to inherit as the only surviving son of the last-but-one Earl; Bertha is out.
However, if the earldom is held in fee simple, the order of inheritance would be: Charles, David, Bertha, Eric. So if you want a heroine to have a title in her own right, there you go.
NB that if Bertha becomes Countess of Polkington in her own right, her husband John Smith does not become Earl of Polkington or get any courtesy title. He remains Mr Smith unless given a title of his own. (He might well take her surname under these circumstances so their children would have the earldom’s family name.) If Bertha’s husband was Sir John Smith, he keeps his title of Sir. If Bertha, Countess of Polkington marries the Marquess of Mandrake, she will probably style herself Marchioness of Mandrake because it’s higher status.
My hero’s mother was playing away and he isn’t the duke’s biological son—can the villain threaten to disinherit him with this knowledge?
No.
It is not easy to disinherit the heir to a peerage (because primogeniture). If Lord and Lady Welford are married, Lady Welford’s eldest son is the legitimate heir to the marquessate and entailed property, even if he bears a striking resemblance to Lady Welford’s lover. Lord Welford’s heir could potentially be disinherited if it could be proved beyond doubt that Lord Welford could not have had sex with his wife for a goodly period around the time of conception—but that would be “could not” as in “she was in England, he was in China”, not just a claim that they weren’t sharing a bed at the time. (For once, the man’s word on the matter doesn’t carry all the weight! Woop!)
Moreover, Lord Welford would need to repudiate the child from the first and stick to that decision. He can’t come back from China, forgive his erring wife, bring up the boy with his name, then change his mind in five years’ time. And even then the case would have to be thrashed out in the Committee of Privileges.
Can my hero be stripped of his peerage if he fails to fulfil the terms of a will, or removed from the line of succession by his irate father because of his rakish ways?
Literally, and I cannot state this clearly enough, no.
The irate father can leave unentailed property/money elsewhere, but titles are not in anyone’s gift. The legitimate firstborn son will inherit the title. Peerages can only be granted along the line of succession and, once granted, can only be removed by an act of Parliament. This virtually never happens, and only for things like treason, which tend to come with other (terminal) consequences. Once the title is formally granted, that’s it.
This is the case even if there is an obvious error. Suppose Lord Manders has an eldest son Roger who died abroad, and a second son James. James will need to provide proof that Roger is dead in order to inherit the title, and if he can’t, it will not be granted. If it is granted, and then Roger turns up a few years later explaining it was all an amusing misunderstanding, James can’t just renounce the title of Lord Manders and let Roger have it.
But I really want my elderly duke to force his handsome son, nephew, and bastard to compete over who will inherit the dukedom!
Tough shit. They’ll just have to fight over money like everyone else.
Talking of bastard dukes, my latest release is Any Old Diamonds, in which Victorian jewel thieves collide with degenerate aristocracy.
One note – since 1963, it has been possible to give up a peerage, even once it has been bestowed, thanks to Tony Benn. Although I guess most duke based romances are set before that.
indeed, I added that in!
Thank you so much for all this information. This is so helpful. I’m a research junky and like to stay true to history as much as possible. This has been the most helpful information I’ve read so far. I am writing a story set in 1890 with a duke who is a blundering idiot. He forces his younger brother into basically doing everything he is supposed to do. I’ve been contemplating the idea of the older brother renouncing his title allowing his younger brother to have it. Although, I wasn’t sure this was even possible. According to what you’re saying here, this is plausible? I haven’t completely decided if I’ll go this route yet. He is married, which gives his wife the title of duchess, so if he gives it up she would lose her title as well?
Also, just curious, because I’ve read different things and would like to get it right, If a duke has three sons, the only son who could have a title would be the eldest, correct? I read something once that the younger brothers would be given courtesy titles like viscount or earl, which didn’t seem right to me. I could be wrong.
Thank you so much. In utter and complete farce, I am willing to tolerate pretty much anything. In anything else, I demand some sort of actual knowledge of the world that the author is writing in. I’ve been going nuts about titles recently.
Thank you for doing all this work! I agree — obvious errors of that sort are MADDENING.
(Perhaps they’re confusing peerage with monarchy? I seem to recall that Henry VIII set his children’s succession, putting Mary ahead of Elizabeth, even though by his own account Mary was illegitimate. It would be easy — though, false — to reason that what applied to kings must apply to dukes!)
I had always understood that the 1926 Marriage and Legitimacy Act didn’t apply to the passage of titles or the estates associated with them: those still passed to the next legitimate (as opposed to legitimated) heir. I got this idea from the 1951 Georgette Heyer mystery, “Duplicate Death”, which turned on a blackmailer discovering that a certain lord had been born 2 weeks prior to his parents’ marriage.
Heyer — or her copy editors? — certainly made occasional mistakes. And, I am not myself a student of English law. So I don’t know if this is true, or was changed by subsequent Acts.
You’re quite right, will make that clear. An English peer’s son legitimated under the 1926 Act became, effectively, a younger son, entitled to a courtesy title if applicable but not to inherit the peerage. Scots legitimated children can inherit peerages.
In the case of Henry VIII and his succession, both Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimate by Henry’s account. My feeling has long been that is there had been a legitimate male descendant of Henry VII in 1553 (when Mary came to the throne), that man would have succeeded Edward VI. In 1553, all of Henry VII’s legitimate descendants were women (Mary, Elizabeth, the Grey sisters, Mary Stewart and Margaret Douglas).
Interesting that, in your example of the unfortunate Earls of Polkington, Alan’s brother doesn’t automatically inherit the title. Thanks for that point: I hadn’t appreciated there had to be such a distinct legal step.
A tiny aside – if Mr Smith comes into a title from a remote relative (say he was the grandson of a second son of the Duke of Dunstable), he can petition for his brothers and sisters to be granted the honorific titles of Lord Francis Smith, Lady Grace Smith (and they won’t be called that unless he *does* petition). What he can’t do is acquire the title of Dowager Duchess for his mother, who will remain Mrs Smith, mother of the Duke of Dunstable.
THANK. YOU. This (and your post about getting titles right) should be required reading for ANYONE intending to write historical romance!
So if John is confirmed as Lord Bingly and then cousin Peter comes forward with rock hard evidence that John was illegitimate, it’s too late to change things?
Would that mean that Peter, or Peter’s eldest son, could try again when John dies? Or is John’s legitimate eldest son next in line no matter what?
As I understand it, once John has been granted the title, that’s it, and his children keep it. It’s a bestowal of honours from the monarch, which trumps pretty much everything. Plus, let’s face it, plenty of honours descended to people who weren’t their father’s son. Once you start messing around with making titles easily removable, the system is endangered, therefore they don’t.
I’m a bit hazy on the details, because it’s a couple of decades since I read up on it, but our local earldom had to go to Parliament in the early 20th c because the only remaining son was in a mental hospital, poor chap, completely unable to look after himself, let alone marry and father children. Despite everything he was still the heir. It took years to sort out.
Yes, fitness isn’t a factor. If you’re born to the title it’s yours.
I seem to recall that bastards could also inherit under Welsh law until it was overwritten by English law. I’m not positive though. So period and area may be a factor for earlier historicals.
I wish I could make this required reading for my fellow (US) Americans who are writing stories around the peerage, with an addendum on how peers are addressed.
KJ wrote a terrific post about forms of address here: https://kjcharleswriter.com/2016/07/27/enter-title-here-2/
This is the best explanation of primogeniture I’ve ever read. Thank you? What happens in the case of twins? What if the eldest is presumed dead? Does the second inherit? And what happens if he does return? How did this work during the Restoration? Charles threw lots of titles around.
The eldest twin gets it. The second will inherit only if the death can be proven to the Committee of Privileges’ satisfaction, and is irrevocable: if the first turns up he’d probably be given another title (this has happened in the case of insoluble problems before!)
What about waiting to see if the wife is pregnant after the title holder dies? Once read a book that said she has 12 months to give birth, which makes no sense. How do entailed property work? Read a book that implies the entailment has to be renewed by currant title holder or it became unentailes. And this isn’t really related, but I was arguing with my 16 ye old- who hands out new title now- monarchy or parliament? Are there many new titles being handed out to artist, etc? I say not, but son says House of Lords policial positions are changing because it is?
I can’t answer most of this off the top, but the monarch is the person who hands out titles–these days on the recommendation of Govt. The Lords is more packed with political appointees than artists.
I think the delay after a peer died leaving a wife of child-bearing age was to allow for time to establish if she was a) pregnant (in the days pre-shop-bought pregnancy tests!) and then for the child to be born (given infant mortality rates, there was a chance the pregnancy wouldn’t go to term.) So yes, 12 months is a long time – I’m not sure where that comes from.
Lissa, my vague recollection from my (U.S.) property law class is that classic entailments back in like the 1500s went on forever without having to be renewed and were difficult to break. In the 18th century or thereabouts, in response to changes in laws that made entails a lot easier to break, rich people started using a sort of jumpfrog system of life estates called “strict settlement,” where a father and son would work together to re-structure the entail under certain circumstances, and then, later, the son and his own son would do the same. These did have to be renewed.
This is the case even if there is an obvious error. Suppose Lord Manders has an eldest son Roger who died abroad, and a second son James. James will need to provide proof that Roger is dead in order to inherit the title, and if he can’t, it will not be granted. If it is granted, and then Roger turns up a few years later explaining it was all an amusing misunderstanding, James can’t just renounce the title of Lord Manders and let Roger have it.
So in the above example, what would happen to Roger?
(Also, thank you for this post. It’s fascinating!)
Well, first, it would be pretty unlikely to happen–so unlikely that I couldn’t find any cases at all where it has happened! However, if it did, it’s possible that Roger would be created Lord Raffles in order to fix the injustice. There have been cases where two claimants have had equally good claims to a title, and it was resolved by creating a new title for one of them.
I’ve just written a book with that premise! The heir wanted to disappear, and set about doing it, but a few years later changed his mind.
After seven years’ absence, the heir’s heir could apply to have the title holder presumed dead, and even if he turned up, once he was declared dead and the title ratified by the Committee, that was that. So of course in The Making Of A Marquess, the missing heir turns up at the last minute! He has to prove who he is, and then he’ll get to keep the title.
The thing is, most novels these days are written in deep third person or first person, so there is nobody between the reader and the character. No narrator. So the people in this world would know. They just did. They didn’t have to learn it, because they’d grown up with that reality, so getting it wrong makes everything not work. We don’t believe in the characters any more, because they don’t even know how to address each other, or behave in a formal situation.
I wrote a book where the hero, a younger son, gets a title through his wife – but the title was her father’s, and he had just done something singularly brave for his country. So he was awarded her father’s title, which was in abeyance. That did happen, but it was far from automatic. The crown office had to be petitioned, and even then they might not do it. In that case the hero would be the first earl (duke, viscount, marquess) of the second creation. They wouldn’t carry on numbering.
My friend is about to have a child. The father is a baronet and has no other children. If they marry after the child is born will that child be heir to the title.
I think that would only be possible if it’s a Scottish baronetcy. Under English law the child can be formally legitimised if the parents marry after birth but not inherit a title.
I’m curious – if a Victorian woman inherits an old barony, as the only child of her father, what would the formalities be? If she were a man, she’d be summoned to the House of Lords, wouldn’t she, but as she’s a woman, that wouldn’t happen. Would there be any official ‘ceremony’ of officially handing over the title, or would it all be done by lawyers, and she wouldn’t need to take any action?
This is a great post, thank you!
If a peer dies without a direct heir, does the committee, or anyone else for that matter, look for an heir, or does an heir have to petition for it?
Also can a transgender man inherit a title?
First question: it’s really up to the family or anyone with an interest to look for the heir. If they don’t the title goes into abeyance.
Second: Currently no but the law probably wouldn’t stand up if challenged. There’s quite an interesting article on it here: https://www.tatler.com/article/trans-toffs
Thank you very much for answering!
What happens with two boy twins who inherits? The one born first possibly?
Yes, the first born.
What of the case of conjoined twins which would effectively be born at the same time?
Thank you for this write up! I love your novels and the research shows in them.
I have a question if you are able to offer any assistance, and I haven’t been able to find any examples: could the granddaughter of a baron titled by writ inherit the barony after death of her uncles and male first cousins (who died without issue) even if her father never held the title himself because he was the youngest son? I understand that typically it can go back up the line so that distant male cousins would inherit the title even if they weren’t born to the previous titleholder, but can’t find clarity if that could happen for women outside of titles granted with special remainders.
I can’t see why not. If there’s no male heir and it’s fee simple, she could absolutely petition for it and I don’t see any reason she wouldn’t get it.
Thank you so much for your reply.
19th Century England: elder son and heir to title and estate is missing during Napoleonic war (a rare occurrence but possible, as I understand it their records were remarkably complete), can baronet father change will to allow second son to inherit but not pass the title on? My understanding is there was no way to declare someone legally dead at that time. In my case the missing heir will reappear. I would assume that even though disabled mentally he would inherit the title. Would he also have to inherit the property despite the will change?
The father could bequeath all unentailed property to his second son. If the property is entailed it goes to the title holder–so unless he goes to law to break the entail, it isn’t possible to give that away. You could definitely go to the Committee of Privilieges to say that the heir vanished during a battle if it was sufficiently long ago and argue for the title to go to the second son. Whether they’d grant it…possible, depends how much evidence you want there to be, but I think you could work it either way.
Mental capacity is completely irrelevant to title inheritance: it’s purely birth.
This is so interesting and useful, thank you! With regards to inheritance, what happens if the heir apparent to an earl is a minor when their father dies? At what age can they inherit the title and estate, and what happens in the meantime? Would they have a guardian – and would that guardian have any rights over the title/estate?!
Hi Jane,
Nothing happens. The title will descend to the next holder whatever their condition, but excluding attainder (when applicable).
The only legal effect is that a peer who is underage cannot sit or be appointed to the House of Lords.
Thank you so much for this information, I have a question, could a Lord force his son to abjure after 1963, are there no circumstances like the son marrying into a different religion/culture/race that would require the consent of the Lord/Parliament etc?
AFAIK you would not be able to renounce the title until you actually had it, ie your father was dead, at which point he wouldn’t be able to force you into doing so.
The UK doesn’t have laws forbidding anyone from marrying people of a different race or religion, including (now) the monarch. That includes peers.
As a follow up, does law of primogenture and the inability to disinherit apply to all levels of Nobility (Barons/Dukes/Viscounts)? Thank you in advance!
Yes. You can leave unentailed property and money where you choose, you can probably break an entail, but you cannot choose who gets your title because that would break the hereditary system.
I’m a little late to the party here, but in the event that a title went into abeyance, no heir was found, and the title reverted to the Crown, what happens to the widow/daughters of the previous title holder? Would all assets return to the Crown? Only the entailed assets? Additionally (and I’m pretty sure this is a stupid question), but could funds be entailed, or just property? Thanks!
Hi Elizabeth.
No, a title in abeyance does not revert to the Crown. Even if no person claims it, the title is still in existence. This is true even of titles which are not in abeyance but are dormant.
‘[W]hat happens to the widow/daughters of the previous title holder?’ With regard to this question, it is most likely the existence of the daughterS which made the dignity fall into abeyance.
Each daughter will represent a portion of the right to the peerage. They must either come to agreement over who should inherit the dignity and petition the Crown as so; or, they all the daughters (and their issue) but ONE must die. Then, the dignity in its entirety will vest in that sole survivor without intervention by the Crown.
If a Marquees dies without a son and his estate has a fee tail so it goes to a cousin, what happens to his wife, does she lose her title of marchioness and is she evicted?
She does not lose her title. If and when the cousin marries, she will be the Dowager Marchioness. What her rights are with respect to property will depend on the marriage settlement. If there is none, under common law she will have dower rights, I.e., a life interest in one third of all the real property of which her husband was “seized” (basically, held title to) during his lifetime. Most likely that would mean she would have a decent income and would not be unhoused, although she probably would not continue to live at the Marquess’s principal estate. For example, in Downton Abbey, Violet, the Dowager Countess, lives in a Dower House near the Abbey, and not in Downton Abbey itself.
Hello! This is a very nice article on the peerage. On the points about peerage law, I have one or two things to comment on.
‘A title could fall into abeyance (stand vacant while waiting for someone to claim it) and potentially then be awarded to the bastard son by the monarch…’
I don’t think this is possible. An abeyance occurs only when a dignity vests in multiple female heirs, or those claiming through them. This only occurs when a dignity is limited to the heirs general of the body (I’ll touch on dignities in fee simple below). Primogeniture prevails only among the male issue; female issue have no precedence between them so all daughters will have equal right to succeed. In other words, multiple daughters make up on heir. As a dignity is indivisible, it falls into abeyance between the co-heirs. However, to be a co-heir, one must a) be lineally descended from the grantee and b) be capable of succeeding to the dignity. As dignities cannot ever be inherited by a bastard issue without statute, the Sovereign does not have the power to determine the abeyance in favour of a bastard i.e. the Sovereign’s prerogative does not extend to settling a dignity in abeyance upon a stranger to the limitation.
This brings me on to your example of the earldom of Polkington. If the earldom is a dignity granted in fee, your example will not lead to an abeyance. If Charles and David both die, each leaving no issue, the earldom vests fully in Lady Bertha. There is no abeyance as a lone daughter constitutes one entire heir.
On the e. of Polkington example, it is not clear if Alan is the first earl. If so, even on the failure of all of Alan’s issue, the brother Eric will have no right to succeed. Here, I refer to the description of dignities granted in fee (fee simple). This is not an accurate description. If a dignity is truly granted ‘in fee’, it will descend to the heirs general of the last peer, linear or collateral. However, it has long be settled that peerages—excluding some Scotch peerages—will only descend to the lineal heirs of the grantee. So, collateral relations of the grantee can never inherit. In truth, all peerages descend for the most part to the heirs of the body of the grantee.
Hi. I’m hoping you still look at these threads and answer the question.
I’m writing a book where one of the supporting characters is a Duke. In one of the books, he will have to fake his own death, so his son will inherit. But then he comes back when it’s safe. I’m assuming he doesn’t get his title back. But what would people call him?
So say his name is William Peters, the 11th Duke of Townsville (not the actual character’s name, obviously). When he comes back, is he just Mr Peters?
Lordy. If the son has been given the title he’d have all associated titles, so the father wouldn’t be entitled to any courtesy title like Viscount Boggshire. But he might be called Lord William Peters in right of being the son of a duke, assuming he was recognised as the real man.
Thank you so much! I really appreciated you taking the time to outline many of the different probable outcomes! I hope you still read these and reply to them, so I’m going to ask a question.
I’m writing a book and want to get some details right. This is a hypothetical situation I have in mind:
There is a woman (she has no title) who marries a Duke or a Marquess (I’m not sure yet, but it’s not so important), however, before they can have children, the Duke dies. Does she have any sort of title afterward? I know there is something like Dowager, but I’m curious – Is there a possibility that she could take on the title the Duke had?
Thanks!
Thank you so much for this, this was literally a question I had while writing a romance.
Thanks for this post. It kept me from making an ass of myself.
In a storyline, I had an idea where a character named Joseph Trundle (the surname is a reference to a series of books I loved as a child and still enjoy to this day) is the eldest son of the deceased second son of the 12th Baron Overstone (a fictional title, I know, bear with me). Originally, I was going to have the Baron’s eldest son and HIS eldest son skipped over due to them being drunken wastrels who squander every cent they get their grubby hands on on alcohol, but after reading this I learned that this wouldn’t work. So Joseph’s going to become Baron since his uncle and cousin have also squandered their -livers-.
I do have a few questions:
1) Do fictional titles annoy those who have a good knowledge of the peerage, or is this just something most of them let slide?
2) Old Lord Overstone dies. About two days later, _before he can be invested with the title Baron_, Joseph’s uncle also dies, and his son follows about an hour later (let’s say either they were already on their deathbeds due to years of self-abuse, or old Lord Overstone gave them a Parting Gift of 50 bottles of some concoction of ungodly potency to “celebrate their impending elevation” and let their natures take their courses), would Joseph be the 13th, 14th, or 15th Baron Overstone?
3) In the story in question, Joseph has a career in being a professional basketball player. Would his career get in the way of his being a Baron?
Working on a historical fiction novel where my MFC eventually marries the second son of an English noble in the Victorian era. What would be a good title higher than a baron, but lower than a duke where the second son marrying a female American magician who also happens to be Catholic wouldn’t be immediately scandalous? I kinda want the rank high enough so that him becoming first her uncle’s manager and then hers is nothing more than entertaining gossip because he’s the second son more than gossip that would create a huge scandal. Thanks!!
Hi I know I’m late to this discussion but I have a question that only seems to confuse me even more as I try to research it. Could two sons, twin brothers, and heirs to some wealth, say they are children of an Earl, before the 1940s both share their title? Is it possible to have some equal inheritance in this case? Such as both being known as Earl and have equal responsibility to their estate or business? Have there been any known cases of this being attempted historically?
No, you can’t share a title. The inheritance, excluding entails, can be divvied up however the parents like, but the title goes to the firstborn (and realistically, the wealth probably would too: the British upper classes weren’t into sharing).