Titles, The Peerage, etc.

eldergrantaire

Registered
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
I don't think baron/baroness is a high enough rank for a baroness to have lesser titles to grant her children as courtesy titles during her lifetime. That's more the domain of viscounts and above. Also, since baroness is the only rank of the peerage a woman can hold in her own right, there wouldn't be any lesser titles she could hold and therefore grant. You can't give as a courtesy title something that's already a courtesy title for you.
 

eldergrantaire

Registered
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
I am curious, though, how does a baronage get passed down such that you end up with a baroness in her own right? Is it just the eldest child/next of kin regardless of gender, or does it only go to a girl if there isn't a male heir?
 

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
What country are you basing this on? Because that's not really how I understand it works in England/Wales.

I don't know what part specifically you're referring to, but, yes, it's England. Do you mean the use of a courtesy title for the son? Looking at some of the resources posted above, it does look like a baron's son would not have any title, so I think I was wrong there. (I can work around this, though.)

If you're setting this story in an alternate universe or history, you can set your titles up however you want. But in England/Wales, it's usually only Baronies that are inherited by women and their sons would not have any title until she died, and certainly not her title.

It's not fantasy; it's set fully in the real world, with one fantastic element. I think I noted above that I misspoke [mis-typed]. I meant baronage. In any case, the exact title isn't mentioned in the WIP. It's really not especially important, because the MC (the son) hates his mother and pretty much ignores any thought of having a title. He presents himself solely as a doctor. She is only ever Mother or Lady R.

For males, titles higher than Baron might also have lesser titles. The holder of these multiple titles can gift one of the lesser titles to his heir.

So John Newton, fourth Baron Whoosits, is granted a Viscountcy. He becomes Viscount St. George AND The Baron Whoosits. He may choose to grant the title Baron Whoosits to his heir as a courtesy title.

Or one man may be granted a boatload of titles over his lifetime.
Duke of Wellington, Marquess of Wellington, Marquess of Douro, Earl of Mornington, Earl of Wellington, Viscount Wellesley, Viscount Wellington, Baron Mornington, and Baron Douro. (The Viscountcy of Wellesley and the Barony and Earldom of Mornington are in the Peerage of Ireland; the rest are in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.)

So the Duke of Wellington granted his lesser title of Marquess of Douro to his eldest son as a courtesy title. Other sons and daughters would have courtesy titles of Lord/Lady Firstname. The eldest son of his eldest son is granted the lesser lesser title of Earl of Mornington as a courtesy. When the Duke dies, everyone moves up a title. (The courtesy titles other than Lord/Lady Firstname are in the gift of the Duke. He doesn't HAVE to grant them, it's just tradition.)

Anyway, it's unlikely that a woman would have a high enough title to have lesser titles in her gift to grant to an heir.

Who can inherit a title is laid out in the grant of the title. It's often just the eldest surviving son of any legitimate son of the original person granted the title. If there is no direct male descendant, you go back up the family tree until you find one--uncle or cousin, etc--but no further back up the family tree than the person who was granted the title. But sometimes, as with some Baronies, daughters can inherit (sometimes all of them equally).

Thanks, good points here! I was aware of that. Royals, for instance, often are in possession of a whole basket-full of titles.
 

eldergrantaire

Registered
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
One interesting nugget re. parent-child relationships from this guide is that first names were hardly ever used even among family, and a mother might refer to her son by his title:

Parents might also ignore titles when addressing their children, but very often if there was a title available, say an eldest son's courtesy title, even a mother would use it, albeit alone, e.g., Hartington.

So if the son hates his title and doesn't use it, it might be an interesting point of contention if his mother referred to him using a form of it, which I assume he would push back on. Just a thought :)
 

Flicka

Dull Old Person
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
147
Location
Far North
Website
www.theragsoftime.com
So here's my riddle, alluded to above in this thread:

The characters in question are a mother and son. The mother has a title in her own right. She's referred to as Lady Rhys. Rhys is not her family name, but the name of the title (as mentioned, I haven't determined whether it would be, e.g., a baronetcy or what; that detail isn't particularly relevant and doesn't come up). Her married name is Witson. Her son is the MC. The father, a commoner, dies when our MC is a boy; I believe he would have the courtesy title of Lord Rhys.

No, he wouldn't; not in Britain. A commoner husband of a baroness is a plain mister, alas. Some feel that is unfair, but the peerage was never about fairness. :ROFL:

I am curious, though, how does a baronage get passed down such that you end up with a baroness in her own right? Is it just the eldest child/next of kin regardless of gender, or does it only go to a girl if there isn't a male heir?

It depends on the origins of the title. First, a title in Britain can have been created either by writ of summons or by letters patent.

In the first case, we're talking very early baron titles. Quoting Wikipedia:

if a writ of summons was issued to a person who was not a peer, that person took his seat in parliament, and the parliament was a parliament in the modern sense (including representatives of the Commons), that single writ created a barony, a perpetual peerage inheritable by male-preference primogeniture. This was not medieval practice, and it is doubtful whether any writ was ever issued with the intent of creating such a peerage. The last instance of a man being summoned by writ without already holding a peerage was under the early Tudors

These titles can usually be inherited by females. Wikipedia once more:

Peerages created by writ of summons are presumed to be inheritable only by the recipient's heirs of the body. /.../ The meaning of heir of the body is determined by common law. Essentially, descent is by the rules of male primogeniture, a mechanism whereby normally, male descendants of the peer take precedence over female descendants, with children representing their deceased ancestors, and wherein the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line per each gender. These rules, however, are amended by the proviso whereby sisters (and their heirs) are considered co-heirs; seniority of the line is irrelevant when succession is through a female line. In other words, no woman inherits because she is older than her sisters. If all of the co-heirs but one die, then the surviving co-heir succeeds to the title. Otherwise, the title remains abeyant until the Sovereign "terminates" the abeyance in favour of one of the co-heirs. The termination of an abeyance is entirely at the discretion of the Crown.

Thus, if there is no male heir and only one female heir, a female can inherit.

In the case of titles created by letters patent, it is decided by the wording of the grant if it is to pass only to heirs-male of the body, or simply to heirs of the body. The previous case, ie males only, is the absolutely most common rule, and when there is an exception, there is usually a special explanation (such as for the title of Duke of Marlbrorough which was amended after the first Duke's only son died of smallpox so that it could pass to one of his daughters, or the Earl of Arlington since the first Earl only had a female heir).

So, if you are writing a title that can pass in the female line, it's good to know how it came about so you know why it is an exception to the rule of male heirs only. :)
 
Last edited:

eldergrantaire

Registered
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
So if there are multiple female heirs and no male, how do you determine who inherits if it's not through seniority? I'm imagining a bunch of would-be baronesses scrapping it out but I assume that's not how it goes :p
 

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
Flicka, thank you! That's very, very helpful. In fact, it's been very helpful to work this out here and get input. I hope other people can get some help on their own conundrums, too! Don't want to dominate the thread.

I think I might have been unclear with my "he". I'd meant the son might get a courtesy title, not the husband, but I think neither of them would anyway.

[Also, luckily, dear mummy is quite old, so a very old title is exactly what she would have (the sole fantastic element is that these people live very long lives--a secret they keep to themselves, naturally).]

eldergrantaire, I'd imagine it would go to the eldest daughter, or the eldest daughter of the eldest daughter depending on the generation. So if Baron Featherweight had only two daughters (A and B), the eldest would inherit. But if those two daughters each had a daughter (X, A's daughter and Y, B's daughter), and both Baron Featherweight and both his daughters were dead, it would go to X, as the eldest daughter of the eldest daughter, even if X were actually younger than Y. (It's possible for the younger sister to have a child before her older sister.) At least, that's how it would work if it were males, so I'd assume the same pattern would apply. Someone please correct me if you know otherwise! ETA: benbenberi set me straight below--ignore all this nonsense I wrote.
 
Last edited:

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
842
Location
Connecticut
So if there are multiple female heirs and no male, how do you determine who inherits if it's not through seniority? I'm imagining a bunch of would-be baronesses scrapping it out but I assume that's not how it goes :p

If the title is one that can be inherited by a female heir, and there's no male heir but multiple females (sisters), none of them get the title -- it goes into abeyance.

As Wikipedia explains in the article on abeyance:
The most common use of the term is in the case of English peerage dignities. Most such peerages pass to heirs-male, but the ancient baronies created by writ, as well as some very old earldoms, pass instead to heirs-general (by cognatic primogeniture). In this system, sons are preferred from eldest to youngest, the heirs of a son over the next son, and any son over daughters, but there is no preference among daughters: they or their heirs inherit equally.

If the daughter is an only child or her sisters are deceased and have no living issue, she (or her heir) is vested with the title; otherwise, since a peerage cannot be shared nor divided, the dignity goes into abeyance between the sisters or their heirs, and is held by no one. If through lack of issue, marriage, or both, eventually only one person represents the claims of all the sisters, he or she can claim the dignity as a matter of right, and the abeyance is said to be terminated.
[SUP][1][/SUP] On the other hand, the number of prospective heirs can grow quite large, since each share potentially can be divided between daughters, where the owner of a share dies without leaving a son.

... It is entirely possible for a peerage to remain in abeyance for centuries. For example, the Barony of Grey of Codnor was in abeyance for over 490 years between 1496 and 1989, and the Barony of Hastings was similarly in abeyance for over 299 years from 1542 to 1841. Some other baronies became abeyant in the 13th century, and the abeyance has yet to be terminated. The only titles other than a barony that have yet gone into abeyance are the earldom of Arlington and the viscountcy of Thetford, which are united, and (as noted above) the earldom of Cromartie; and the earldom of Lucan, as mentioned above.

The underlying reason for this practice is the common law principle that real property inherited by the male heir was kept intact, but if there is no male heir the property was equally divided between the female heirs (or their heirs, if any of the sisters was already dead). Titles that could be inherited by female heirs were legally treated in this as in some other respects the same way as real property.
 
Last edited:

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
If the title is one that can be inherited by a female heir, and there's no male heir but multiple females (sisters), none of them get the title -- it goes into abeyance.

As Wikipedia explains in the article on abeyance:

The underlying reason for this practice is the common law principle that real property inherited by the male heir was kept intact, but if there is no male heir the property was equally divided between the female heirs (or their heirs, if any of the sisters was already dead). Titles that could be inherited by female heirs were legally treated in this as in some other respects the same way as real property.

I stand corrected (again).
 

eldergrantaire

Registered
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
Apparently I was wrong about baronies being the only ranks of the peerage that can be held by a woman- there are some other exceptions discussed here. Not sure why it seems to be more of a thing for baronies than any other title.

On a slightly different tack, would it be plausible in 1905 for a mere knight's wife (so she has the honorific title Lady Abbott) to be friends with a lady a few rungs above her- say a viscountess or something?
 

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
842
Location
Connecticut
I think it's more a thing for baronies because there are very few other English peerages still around that date back to before heir male became a common limitation. All the duchies and marquisates, and most of the earldoms, are of much more recent creation, and follow the more restrictive rules.

Lady Abbott can certainly be friends with a viscountess or a duchess or a princess, or with Miss Smith or Mrs Campbell or anyone else who belongs to her general social circle, unless they're all horrible snobs.
 

Flicka

Dull Old Person
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
147
Location
Far North
Website
www.theragsoftime.com
I think it's more a thing for baronies because there are very few other English peerages still around that date back to before heir male became a common limitation. All the duchies and marquisates, and most of the earldoms, are of much more recent creation, and follow the more restrictive rules.

Lady Abbott can certainly be friends with a viscountess or a duchess or a princess, or with Miss Smith or Mrs Campbell or anyone else who belongs to her general social circle, unless they're all horrible snobs.

Even very old earldoms can be male only - look at the Earl of Oxford. The title was created in the 12th century and it was male-only which is why it became dormant in 1703 when the last earl only left a daughter (Diana, who did not inherit the title, and who married the Duke of St Albans, son of Charles II and Nell Gwyn). And then there's a difference between England and Scotland - I seem to recall they have a larger portion of heirs only titles (including earldoms), and they also do not have the concept of abeyance.
 

Flicka

Dull Old Person
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
147
Location
Far North
Website
www.theragsoftime.com
I think I might have been unclear with my "he". I'd meant the son might get a courtesy title, not the husband, but I think neither of them would anyway.

I see! Yes, as has been pointed out, a son of a peer could theoretically have one, but as you've already concluded, unlikely in this case. Sorry for misreading you.
 

ULTRAGOTHA

Merovingian Superhero
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
313
Angelliz2k -

If you want Mum to be a Baroness, then she'd be Jane Witson, The Baroness Rhys. Referred to as Lady Rhys. Both her deceased husband and her son would be Mr. Witson (or Dr. Witson). Son would only get the title of Lord Rhys when she dies.

If you want Son to have a courtesy title, then you could make her one of those titles that pass to the heirs of the body--say she's Countess Rhys and The Baroness Whoosits. She could then grant the title of Baron Whoosits to her son (usually when he's born) and he's styled as Lord Whoosits.