The first boy born to a marriage is usually referred to as the “heir,” though a more legal term might be “heir apparent.”

Birth notices are usually something to the effect of: “The Duchess of Devonshire, a son and heir.”

The rights of inheritance to peerage of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom had to follow the rules of England.

I remember reading somewhere that the male heir could be up to the third cousin.  After that, the procedure becomes a bit murky. And do not even start on rights of inheritance in Wales and Scotland. I was lost in some of those documents.

Rules of inheritance to other property varied from place to place, even within England. There were different rules in Kent, for instance, than there were for Devonshire. However, these rules of inheritance were only applied if there was no will, deed, settlement, or other document disposing of property. 

All peerages by patent descended according to the patent. Peerages by writ by common law heirs general. If a man with much property died, the various pieces of property could all descend to different people.

If a peerage was 400 years old, the hunt for an heir could go back as far as the younger sons of the original peer.

In stories, we usually have the heir or newly-minted peer being pressed to marry and have children. The supposition was that if they married, they would have children. Yet, we know such was not always true.

The peerages were supposed to go straight down the line from father to son. In reality, I would say a peerages always going directly father to oldest son only happened slightly more than half the time.

It was not at all uncommon for peers who were in the British Navy to die either without children or without sons.

One would think a peerage held by a man who had ten children, with four or more boys included, would be safe from extinction, but that was not always the case.

See my piece on What is the Difference Between a Peerage that is Dormant vs. Extinct vs. in Abeyance?

More than one peerage has descended from uncle to nephew and then to cousins.

Can a duke’s heir sit in the House of Lords in place of his sick father? Answer: Not unless he is given a writ of acceleration and sent to the House of Lords in one of his father’s lesser titles, such as a barony. In that case, he will sit with the barons and use the baron’s title in the House, but still be the more prominent title outside of it and for most questions of precedence.

All heirs have to prove their pedigree and legitimacy to sit in the House of Lords.

See Nancy Regency Researcher post on Introduction of a New Peer to the House of Lords. [I included bits of this procedure in my short novel, Courting Lord Whitmore.]

The man has to have the pedigree going back to the ancestor from whom he descends and show all the marriages and legal births in his line. He has to show the line of the late peer ended and how he is the only legitimate heir around.

The Committee on Privilege of the House of Lords hears all cases of contested claims.

The College of heralds, Bibles, letters, parish registers and living people’s memories can be accepted as “evidence” in such cases.

A Brit living in America could assume the title. However, if he were an American citizen he did not receive a seat in the House of Lords and at various periods there were laws against “aliens” owning property, so what property could go to him would probably be fought over.

He could ask to be naturalized.

Americans could always inherit the titles. The peerage law made the point that whoever was next in line was the absolute owner of the title. However, the American either took up the title or it went dormant and no one could have it in his place unless he or his father had been attainted for treason or some other egregious crime.

Some Australians have been eligible for a title for nearly a century. The title is still dormant, no one else can have it, but the property has long since been handled by others. 

U. S. law said no citizen could be granted a title by a foreign government without permission of Congress, but succession to it was not the same thing.

It did not much matter if any one took up the title or not as a title was not real property.

What mattered was the property and that was a more complicated story.

One book I read had an American captain who fought against Great Britain succeeding to a title and walking into the House of Lords. If he was English enough to be entitled to sit in the House of Lords, he was a traitor for fighting against his country. If he was American, so was not a traitor, then he could not become a member of the House of Lords. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it too.

The seat in the House of Lords and property went to natural citizens and some naturalized ones.

Dual Citizenship did not exist in those days, as far as I have been able to discover. Correction of my perception is welcomed. Except for USA, which allows citizenship to any born inside its borders. For the most part, diplomatic corps take their nationality with them and a child born to a diplomat in a foreign country is considered as born at home. The father’s domicile was still England though his residence was in a different country.

A man could live for decades outside of England and yet have his main domicile be England as long as he did not become involved in foreign politics or apply for naturalization elsewhere. [In my upcoming Lady Glynis and the Earl, the heroine lives with her aunt and uncle. He is a British diplomat and owns an estate which carries a title. Such was the type of relationship required, though he had not lived in England for more than twenty years.]

The USA and Great Britain fought a couple of wars against each other, and people of the US were considered aliens. If a subject of the king stayed on after the revolution, for example, and took part in the new country, he was considered as having changed his allegiance. It cost one woman an inheritance. [Another book plug: The heroine’s father in Captain Stanwick’s Bride is a Scottish surgeon in the U.S., working for the U.S. Army. He cannot go back to Great Britain and claim land he inherited.]

Americans could hold British titles. For example, the title of Lord Fairfax of Cameron was held by Americans for several generations starting in 1798:

Rev. Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord Fairfax of Cameron (1736—1802) was an Anglican clergyman and Scottish peer (the title was created in 1627 before the Union of 1707). He was a lifelong friend of George Washington and became the first American-born Lord Fairfax; his predecessors were born in the UK. The Rev. The Lord Fairfax was the first cousin once removed of the seventh Lord. He lived in Virginia. He was the grandson of Reverend the Hon. Henry Fairfax, second son of the fourth Lord. However, it wasn’t until 1800 that he was confirmed in the title by the House of Lords. Fairfax did not pursue his peerage until 1798, while on a business trip to England. The previous Lord Fairfax, his cousin Robert, had died in 1793. After his death in 1802, his widow sued his executor, but the Supreme Court found for the executor in 1809. His son Thomas Fairfax became the 9th Lord Fairfax of Cameron.

The title was forgotten by the family except as a curiosity until one of the heirs returned to England and was confirmed in the title in 1908.

Albert Kirby Fairfax, 12th Lord Fairfax of Cameron (23 June 1870 – 4 October 1939), was an American-born Scottish Representative Peer and politician in the British House of Lords.

Born at Northampton, in Largo, Prince George’s County, Maryland, Fairfax was discovered to be the rightful holder of his title after it had been essentially forgotten by his family (which had resided in the United States for several generations). After researchers determined Albert Kirby Fairfax to be the 12th Lord Fairfax of Cameron, his title was allowed by the House of Lords in 1908. His father was John Fairfax, 11th Lord Fairfax of Cameron, and his mother was Mary Brown Kirby

He was a member of Fairfax & Company, of George Street, London. He was a partner of Bonbright & Company, George Street, London. He was naturalized as a UK citizen on 17 November 1908. He was elected a Scottish Representative Peer and served in that capacity from 19 October 1917 to his death on 4 October 1939.

Naturalization took what ever time it took for a private act of parliament when it was in session.

Rev. Bryan Fairfax never renounced his British citizenship so was not really an American. Albert Fairfax became a  British subject. However, despite the fact the men did not claim the peerage while it was forgotten by their heirs, it remained dormant, as such, no one else could claim it. When Albert Fairfax wished to claim it, he had to prove he was next in line, as does everyone else who claim a peerage. Sons succeeding fathers merely had to prove that they were born after the parents married. To succeed, one had to trace his legitimate lineage back to the last known peer or to the first one, if not a direct descendant of the last one.

But he could NOT sit in the House of Lords. I think they probably managed to take the entailed property that went with the title because such only gave the man a life interest in it. He needs to marry quickly and have a son born in England.

Citizenship was also complicated by the fact once a woman married, she assumed the citizenship of her husband. My great-great grandmother’s U.S. passport application in the late 19th century stated she was a U.S. citizen by virtue of her marriage to her husband, who had been born in the States.

An act of March 2, 1907, also known as the Expatriation Act, changed all this. Congress mandated that “any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.” Upon marriage, regardless of where the couple resided, the woman’s legal identity morphed into her husband’s.

Find more information: When Saying “I Do” Meant Giving Up Your U.S. Citizenship

The Cable Act, or the Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act, was passed by Congress in 1922. The Cable Act was written in response to sections of the Expatriation Act of 1907 that stripped women of their U.S. citizenship if they married non-citizen men.

The 1931 amendment to the Cable Act allowed women to retain their American citizenship even if they married a person ineligible for naturalization.

Peerage, Abdicationg, Inheritance, and Questions of Legality might be of interest to some of you.

As for why some peers did not marry, another reason was venereal disease, including such situations as his parents were afflicted and he was born sterile (many had mistresses, but did they have children by these liaisons?), or they had contracted it themselves and did not want to pass it on to an unsuspecting bride.

I am surprised at the number of peers who never marry. The young man who became the Duke of Devonshire in 1811 was one of them. William George Spencer Cavendish, 6th Duke of Devonshire, , styled Marquess of Hartington until 1811, was a British peer, courtier, nobleman, and Whig politician. Known as the “Bachelor Duke”, he was Lord Chamberlain of the Household between 1827 and 1828 and again between 1830 and 1834. The Cavendish banana is named after him. I have not read any real reason why he never married, though reasons have been presented:

One Wikipedia page says he was devastated when his cousin Lady Caroline married another, so he chose never to marry. As he was 21 in 1811 and she married in 1805 or so, such an attraction could be called “calf love” for a lovely older cousin.

Another Wikipedia page suggests he stayed single because he liked the young cousin and his wife who was next in line to inherit. As the heir was in line to succeed to an earldom, he would not actually be sending a man into poverty if he had married and fathered a son.

Other reasons given:

He felt that he was not the son of the Duke of Devonshire so not entitled to the dukedom, though he treated it as his and used the money while he lived so that does not hold water.

He never felt enough interest in a woman to marry her. There are letters to his mistresses which I have not seen, but that does not preclude him not having a desire to marry.

Reading the peerage or even Wikipedia pages about peers shows the peers were generally closely related to each other, and the aristocracy could be called “the cousins. ” Also, there are some stories there which are stranger than fiction.