General Chat

My question is If an Earl dies with only daughters, and there is no direct line anywhere only women. Would his daughter's son inherit the title. :-(

If there are males in his line cousins they would inherit the title. As far as I know if no male cousins they go back another generation again and they inherit

Succession to a peerage depends on how the Letters Patent (the document creating the peerage) were drafted.

There have been times, where the Letters Patent, were specifically written to allow for female succession - for example:-

Earl Mountbatten - when the first Earl became a Viscount (1946), he specifically asked that his daughters (oldest one first) be allowed to succeed if he had no sons.

As far as I know, the rules of succession have been changed only for the Royal Family, they have not yet been changed for any other hereditary titles - any changes are still on the back burner.

Did you watch Downton abbey?

He was an earl who only had daughters, his estate would go to a cousin.....But the cousin married the eldest daughter, so that was ok

My gt gt Grandfather was a Baronet. He only had one daughter and his son had been killed when very young.he also had three sisters none of whom had a son.

His cousin was the only heir, he promptly sold everything when he became 7th Baronet.

Oh well, no chance of me being Lady Maryanna !!!

M. :-(

The Letters Patent that I mentioned earlier, would contain what is known as a "remainder" (an instruction) as to whom the title passes when the original holder dies. Remainders can be rather general, such as, To heirs whatsoever - which would allow the title to pass to either male or female descendants, or very specific, such as, To heirs male of the first son, to heirs male of the second son, to heirs male of the third son, and so it goes on.

The present arrangement means that even if females are allowed to succeed, if there is more than one daughter, then it is not necessarily the case that the title will pass to the eldest daughter, all daughters have equal claim to the title because, there is no similar right of primogeniture (the right, by law or custom, of the first born male child to inherit the family estate) - that applies to females, where there is more than one daughter things can get quite messy.

Many titles risk dying out or passing onto distant cousins even when perfectly legitimate daughters are passed over just by virtue of being female.

Thanks but there are no males in the line at all, only a daughter with a son. So would the her son take the title.

Unless there was a condition in The Letters Patent specifying the succession, the likelihood is her son would inherit the title - however it is a very complicated area of law.

When a hereditary peer dies, and his heir wishes to prove his claim to the title, he or she must provide suitable documentary evidence to the Crown Office of the House of Lords to prove that he or she is indeed the heir to the title - See more at:-

http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-peerage/claims-peerage#sthash.csL9vWXT.dpuf

The Ministry of Justice guidance notes for anyone claiming succession to a peerage:-

http://www.hereditarypeers.com/option1.htm

So you are writing a book... Found on fmp Facebook page

Thanks that is a good reply. The reason I'm asking, I'm on a sequel to a book I have written, and I have a fictional Earl, who has no male line, or male siblings, in fact females are all there are going back 200 years. So I have his daughter married and she has a son. The date would be about 1885, so it's possible then for the son in law to take the title which would then be passed onto the son when his dad dies. Though as it's a fiction, I can change the rules, but I want to be as accurate as possible.

Not me, Owen might be, if I wrote a book about my brushes with those from the higher echelons of society - it would probably be censored :-D