Regularly, I have a number of people who ask me questions regarding points in the story he/she is writing. Heck, I have a handful of those of whom I ask my questions also. On Facebook, I belong to a group called Regency Kisses: Lady Catherine’s Salon, where questions are the normal, as well as sharing Regency stories and authors.

Keeping that in mind, here goes . . .

Investopedia tells us, “An heir is defined as an individual who is legally entitled to inherit some or all of the estate of another person who dies intestate. Dying intestate means the deceased person failed to establish a legal last will and testament during their living years. In such a scenario, the heir receives property according to the laws of the state in which the property is probated. Heirs who inherit property are typically children, descendants, or other close relatives of the decedent. Spouses typically are not legally considered to be heirs, as they are instead entitled to properties via marital or community property laws.”

Meanwhile, The Law Dictionary tells us, “At common law. A person who succeeds, by the rules of law, to an estate in lands, tenements, or hereditaments, upon the death of his ancestor, by descent and right of relationship. The term “heir” has a very different signification at common law from what it has in those states and countries which have adopted the civil law. In the latter, the term is indiscriminately applied to all persons who are called to the succession, whether by the act of the party or by operation of law. The person who is created universal successor by a will is called the “testamentary heir;” and the next of kin by blood is, in cases of intestacy, called the “heir at law,” or “heir by intestacy.” The executor of the common law in many respects corresponds to the testamentary heir of the civil law. Again, the administrator in many respects corresponds with the heir by intestacy. By the common law, executors and administrators have no right except to the personal estate of the deceased; whereas the heir by the civil law is authorized to administer both the personal and real estate.”

That is the legal mumbo-jumbo. Below are points to keep in mind when writing about heirs in the Georgian era.

The first boy is usually called the heir though a more legal term might be heir apparent.

Birth notices were something similar to: “The Duchess of Devonshire a son and heir.”

I read somewhere (wish I could remember where) that the male heir could be up to the third cousin.  After that it gets a bit murky. And do not even start on rights of inheritance in Wales and Scotland. 

In stories we usually have the heir or newly minted peer being pressed to marry and have children. The supposition is that if they married, they would have children.

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. [Plot bunnies just raised their ugly heads, did they not?]

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

Rules of inheritance to other property varied from place to place even within England. There were different rules in Kent for instance.  In Kent the dominant inheritance code was ‘gavelkind’, by which all sons inherited equally. However, the predominant inheritance rule throughout the rest of England in the medieval period and afterwards was male-preference primogeniture, whereby estates passed in total to the eldest son. 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 were dispense 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 to the younger sons of the original peer.

The peerages were supposed to go straight down the line from father to son. In reality, I would say that 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 navy to die either without children or without sons.

One would think that 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.

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

I am also surprised at the number of peers who never married. The young man who became the Duke of Devonshire in 1811 was one of them. I have not read any real reason why he never married, though some reasons have been presented:

***One Wikipedia page says that he was devastated when his cousin Lady Caroline married another so never married himself. 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 that he stayed single because he liked the young cousin and his wife who was the  heir. 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 that the peers were generally closely related to each other and the aristocracy could be called “the cousins,” providing some stories that could rival my beloved Appalachia.

Question: Can he sit in the House of Lords in place of his sick father? Not unless he is given a writ of acceleration and sent to the House of Lords in one of his father’s baronies. In that case he will sit with the barons and use the baron’s title in the House, but still be a Marquess outside of it and for most questions of precedence.

All heirs have to prove that their pedigree and legitimacy.

When called before the House of Lords, 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 that 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.

An American could assume the title. However, if he were an American citizen he did not assume 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, however, 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 of something. (think “The American Revolutionary War”).

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. 

US 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 didn’t 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 story I read had an American captain who had 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 the country. If he was American and therefore not a traitor, then he could not be brought before the House of Lords as the heir.. 

Having the title without the land was just being able to be called “My lord” instead of “Mr.” It was a social title and position. The title without anything else was to what Americans could succeed.

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 welcome. Except for USA which allows citizenship to any born inside its borders. For the most part diplomatic corps took their nationality with them and a child born to a diplomat in a foreign country was 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 politics against England or apply for naturalization.

Could those who come to this side of the pond live and work or do otherwise in Canada or some of the British possessions? Yes. There would be no problems with Canadians.

The US 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 and took part in the new country he was considered as having changed his allegiance. It cost several an inheritance. Naturalization took what ever time it took for a private Act of Parliament when it was in session.

A quick read of how it all came to pass on Wikipedia.

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

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

The man in 1798 had not renounced his British citizenship so was not really an American. The one in 1900, became a  British subject. However, despite the fact that the men did not claim the peerage while it was forgotten by their heirs, it remained dormant  as no one else could claim it. When the man in 1900 decided to claim it, he had to prove he was next in line as did everyone else who claimed a peerage. Sons succeeding fathers merely had to prove that they were born after the parents married. 

They had to trace their legitimate lineage back to the last known peer or to the first one if not a direct descendant of the last one.

When it came to property, it could go back to the female line. Most estates were made up of several small pieces of land as well as the major one. Some had secondary peerages as well. The marriage settlement of the  next to last countess might have said that her property went back to their family if no direct descendant lived, or it could go to a female.

They could NOT, however, sit in the House of Lords. I think they probably managed to take the entailed property that went with the title because that only gave the man a life interest in it. If so, he would be required to marry quickly and have a son born in England.

Citizenship was also complicated by the fact that once a woman married, she assumed the citizenship of her husband. That was the case in the US until sometime in the 20th century. My great-great grandmother’s US passport application in the late 19th century stated she was a US citizen by virtue of her marriage to her husband who had been born in the States.