I am back again to ramble on about another issue of inheritance, this one has to do with “abeyance.”

Abeyance (from the Old French abeance meaning “gaping”) is a state of expectancy in respect of property, titles or office, when the right to them is not vested in any one person, but awaits the appearance or determination of the true owner. In law, the term abeyance can be applied only to such future estates as have not yet vested or possibly may not vest. For example, an estate is granted to A for life, with remainder to the heir of B. Following A’s death, if B is still alive, the remainder is in abeyance, for B has no heirs until B’s death. Similarly, the freehold of a benefice, on the death of the incumbent, is said to be in abeyance until the next incumbent takes possession. [Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). “Abeyance“. Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 61.]

Confused? Do not feel bad, for little about “abeyance” comes in layman’s terms. Let us see what we can do about it.

A man who supposedly inherited could simply refuse to take up the title or touch the money. Technically he would still be the title holder (baron, earl, viscount, etc.), but to have the full title and honors he must be confirmed before Parliament in the House of Lords, and all the legal stuff has to be completed to ensure he is the correct heir. He can simply not do that and not style himself by the title. It remains it place. It was not until 1963 that anyone could duck out of a title.

See my post from March 26, 2025, on the Procedure to Claim a Regency Title for more information.

For a good summary of what hereditary titles mean, choose this Wikipedia post – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer

The man could theoretically commit treason, in which case he and his family would be stripped of the title. Such would be an extreme measure, but there it is. If you do not understand this concept or want more information, have a look at my piece from February 12, 2025, on Corruption of the Blood (a term for treason).

The Duke of Windsor’s abdication was a very complicated legal process, and one Parliament allowed and had to handle legally due to the duke’s marrying a divorced woman, which actually made him unfit to be head of the Church of England, which is a job the King of England must take up (thank you, Henry XIII), and there are laws about the monarch’s marriages. Immediately after his abdication, upon which he was named the duke of Windsor by his brother Albert, now George VI, Edward left England to live on the European continent. Wallis Simpson’s divorce became final in May 1937, and she had her name changed legally to Mrs. Wallis Warfield. The terms of his continued receipt of a stipend were that he was effectively exiled from his homeland.

This is why there was also a stink over King Charles marrying Camilla–that had to be sorted out legally before Parliament. PRINCE CHARLES and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, faced a tricky legal situation over their civil marriage in 2005, when the Human Rights Act saved the day – but the Prince of Wales had previously voiced his strong opposition to the 2000 Act. 

Now, back to the question at hand. The man does not need to send in the writ of summons to the House of Lords, and he can refuse to use the title, but someone must oversee the care for the property, and no one else can have the title while he is alive.

The man could, theoretically, have the title’s Letters Patent amended by an Act of Parliament. If the earldom is Scottish, he could even leave the line of descent unspecified and have Parliament determine the course of inheritance. I have seen this done in several novel, but please know one should research the heck out of all the probabilities before proceeding. The two most famous examples of amending Letters were the Dukedom of Marlborough in 1706 and the Duke of Windsor in 1936.

When the Earl of Berkley died his oldest son applied for a writ of summons to the House of Lords. The Committee on  Privilege turned the young man down and said he and the other brothers born before 1795 were illegitimate and that the earldom would fall to the 16-year-old who was born in 1796. The boy was too young to do anything about the matter, and his oldest brother and mother ran things. When he came of age, he still never put forth a claim to the earldom. However, he was, by right and law, the earl so anything requiring the signature of the earl had to be signed by him. He signed responsibility over to his oldest brother. but the title itself went dormant until the youngest son died.

Somewhere around 1945, men succeeding to a peerage were allowed to disclaim it. If it went dormant during his life time, no one else could assume it. This was done mainly by men who had political power in the House of Commons and did not want to give it up. [See my April 4, 2025, piece on Heirs in the House of Commons for more information.]

The current Duke of  Marlborough can not passover his heir for a more somber younger son. The heir can not be disinherited. If there is a living person who is next in line, the succession cannot be changed. Earlier the  descent of the dukedom was changed because the Duke had no living son and there was slight chance of his having one. The succession was changed to allow his daughters to assume the title and then their sons. This was  during the duke’s life time and was an exception to a general rule. A man who is living and the lawful successor can not have it taken from him except by being convicted of a crime. During the Regency there was no way to disclaim a peerage except by not using it and not sending in a request for a seat in the House of  Lords.

One case of avoiding abeyance occurred back in the beginning because he was too poor.  However, that was never repeated. One had to be convicted of a felony and sentenced to death.  Then there was  attainder and corruption of the blood.  The title wasn’t  actually lost, in most cases, because  he kept it as long as he kept his head. 

Wikipedia provides us a somewhat unreliable and not so thorough list as we might hope, but I thought to share it so you might see the extent of how long some titles have been in abeyance:

• 1426: Baron Camoys, called out of abeyance in 1839 after 413 years.
• 1455: Baron Cromwell, called out of abeyance after 35 years; again in 1923 after 426 years.
• 1481: Baron Mowbray, called out of abeyance after 2 years; again in 1878 after 100 years and 3 months.
• 1496: Baron Grey of Codnor, called out of abeyance in 1989 after 493 years.
• 1508: Baron de Ros, called out of abeyance after 4 years; again in 1806 (after 119 years), in 1943 (after 4 years) and in 1958 (after 2 years).
• 1542: Baron Hastings, called out of abeyance after 299 years.
• 1557: Baron Braye, called out of abeyance after 282 years; again in 1879 after 17 years.
• 1602: Baron Strabolgi, called out of abeyance after 314 years.
• 1604: Baron le Despencer, called out of abeyance after 143 years; called out again in 1763 after 7 months and in 1788 after 7 years.
• 1616: Baron Furnivall, called out of abeyance after 31 years.
• 1646: Baron Ferrers of Chartley, called out of abeyance after 35 years.
• 1660: Baron Windsor, called out of abeyance after 18 years (the length of the English Civil War); again in 1855 after 22 years.
• 1677: Baron Ferrers of Chartley, called out of abeyance after 31 years.
• 1721: Baron Clinton, called out of abeyance after 29 years
• 1734: Baron Clifford, called out of abeyance after 5 years; (again in 1776 and 1833 after a year)
• 1757: Baron Dudley, called out of abeyance after 159 years.
• 1764: Baron Botetourt, called out of abeyance after 358 years; again in 1803 after 21 years.
• 1780; Baron Willoughby de Eresby, called out of abeyance after a year; again in 1871 after a year.
• 1784: Baron Howard de Walden, called out of abeyance after 96 years; again in 2004 after five years.
• 1948: Baron Conyers and Baron Fauconberg, called out of abeyance after 64 years. [Wikipedia]

Once a man was seated in the House of Lords under a title, the Lords would not take it back. Neither was he able to disclaim it.

If he committed suicide, nothing happened to the title. The son inherited as usual. It would be a rare man of the Georgian era who did not want a title just because his father had disgraced it. He did not have to claim it, but he could not sit in the House of Lords. He could change his name either by signing manual, a deed poll, or just by doing it. However, those were extreme measures, and he would be compounding the failure of his father by not attending to the estate, the workers, the servants, etc., and all the others who depended on the family in one way or another.

Question: Is it possible for all lands to be lost save to pay debts? Or did lands always have to remain with the title?

The answer depends on how the lands were acquired and what deeds, settlements, or entails controlled their disposition. While all of a man’s property could be sold to cover debts, entailed properties and hereditments and such came under a special provision. There were special rules pertaining to peers and debts. Land did not always go with the title, though the family seat was usually tied to it. Titles and property could go in different directions and often did.

Question: In earlier times, the hero of such a situation would not have had a choice. If his father committed treason, the title, lands, etc., EVERYTHING was forfeitted. The family would have nothing. Was this still true in the Regency?

Yes. That was true long after all the other “older” (like beheading, etc.) punishments were discarded. If the father committed treason, the son would not have a choice of accepting the title because there would not be one for him to accept.

Do not quote me on this part, but I think those owed money by the father would be out of luck as well because the son would inherit nothing. NO one would inherit anything. It is doubtful whether the widow would even have a jointure or income unless her husband had been barred from anything except the income from her dowry, which would return to her on his death.I n the case of treason, some sons did change their names and go off to the new world. However, most tried to stay alive and waited and then put in a petition for the restoration of titles and lands. Sometimes it did not come until a grandson made the petition. The title could be lost if the man committed murder. [Note: That scenario is part of the plot of my novel, The Heartless Earl.]