Every Woman Dreams…

Question from a Reader: Could an earldom pass through the female line? Let us say an earl dies and he has no living sons remaining and there are no grandsons, could the earldom pass to his eldest daughter?

Answer: Could be “yes,” but more likely “no,” so if this is the plot point on which you wish to know author suicide, I would not recommend it as a plot bunny. That being said, let me make several explanations.

First and foremost, It depends on the original documents that set up the title in the first place. If the documents say, as most do, ‘to heirs male of the body’, then the title CANNOT descend through daughters. Some of the older titles say ‘heirs of the body’. In this case, one of the daughters will inherit in her own right and will become the countess of XXXXX, but will not be able to exercise all the privileges of the title (for example, she will not be able to sit in the House of Lords). Everything depends on the founding documents.

If it is heirs male of the body, the title would become dormant until they can search all collateral family lines, no matter how distant.

Here’s a brief summary with an example from the lovely Jude Knight’s website ~ https://judeknightauthor.com/…/who-inherits-the-title…/

Generally speaking, only the Scottish had founding documents that permit a female to inherit. Now that I have said such, people will provide me a hundred examples from the time period where a female inherited.

It is often easier to start with the question of how to make X the peer. There were a few cases of earldoms in the English peerage where the title went to a daughter. There is even an appendix on it in the Complete Peerage. Usually, such peerages went to the oldest daughter if there were no sons. while baronies could go into abeyance, some argue that earldoms did not.

The complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom : extant, extinct, or dormant

A peerage by writ was a very old peerage. There were only earls and barons at that time. These peerages were based on a writ of summons to the Parliament of the day. As most peers acquired other titles and higher ranks along the way, these sometimes were forgotten. However, there have been several cases where a superior title was dormant, extinct, or went to a male where the barony (and rarely an earldom) could be inherited by a daughter or daughters. Because they were by writ, there was no patent for these and so the inheritance was not tied strictly to the oldest son.

Basically, legitimate sons inherited in birth order. If the founding documents do not specifically allow daughters to inherit, then the title goes into abeyance until the Monarch allows a child of one of the daughters to take the title. It might not be the eldest, in this case.

The title does not go into abeyance if the daughter can inherit (the wording appears to be heirs general). It goes to the eldest daughter. This happens mostly in Scotland. The eldest daughter’s eldest son inherits from her even if he is younger than any son the other daughters have.

Abeyance is where there is no known heir or where there is a dispute about which heir is the right one. For example, the 1st earl had an eldest son who inherited and twin sons as younger sons. Birth order for these two has been lost over time, and they both have one male descendant in the 6th generation. Which is the heir? No one can be confident. Therefore, the title goes into abeyance while the King, and those he assigns the task, figure it out.

Question #2 – What if the holder of the title successfully petitioned the Crown to recreate the title for the eldest son of one of the daughters?

Answer: Though I assume this could be accomplished, I am not assured of what sort of rules and caveats one must overcome to make this happen. I would also assume that this option would have had to have been set up prior to the death of the last title holder.

It seems to me, and I do not wish to be your “Debbie Downer” in this matter, that this option would have been known before the last title holder’s death. This is not something that research might discover, after the death, making an unknown as the new title holder.

Title holders knew who was next in line. Simple as that. Only if there were numerous deaths (which I have written in one of my books) would one see a significantly younger son inherit or even the son of one of the daughters. However, when I did this, I kept it in the male line, with two heirs dying before they could inherit and one of those having only daughters at the time of his death. One killed in a duel on the Continent before he married. And the fourth with a son who became the new earl after that father’s death. A bit overkill (pardon the pun), but still male heirs of the body.

Question from a Reader/Author: Is there any other reasons besides age when a couple was considering elopement during the Regency Era? I mean, if they were both twenty-one or older, were there other restrictions? Would they still require a parent’s permission? Was Scotland the only choice? Could they go to France or some other European country?

As a general rule, the English accepted all marriages as valid that were valid in the country where they were celebrated. However, there were few marriages of English persons in France, for example, during the war, except those of soldiers who had a chaplain officiating. A marriage that took place in such conditions after the war was declared invalid because it was not done in accordance with local law.

There were the Channel Islands where some people went to be married, but usually these were people who lived in the southwest corner of the country and were accustomed to the sea. I have recently written such a scenario in The Marchioness’s Madness, which is waiting to be published. Of course, the couple in that tale are older, looking for a second chance romance.

The Channel Islands are an archipelago in the English Channel, off the French coast of Normandy. They are divided into two Crown Dependencies: the Bailiwick of Jersey, which is the largest of the islands; and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, consisting of Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, Herm and some smaller islands. Historically, they are the remnants of the Duchy of Normandy. Although they are not part of the United Kingdom, the UK is responsible for the defence and international relations of the islands as it is for the other Crown Dependency, the Isle of Man, and the British Overseas Territories. [The term “Channel Islands” was not used until about 1830, so do not use it in a Regency era book.]

As for the Channel Islands, they were properties of the English crown but had their own legislature and laws. They were not part of France, though their proximity to the French coast made travel there dangerous during the war. According to my notes, they allowed marriage to anyone 21 or older without any residency requirements.  My notes do not mention what the rules were for younger people as I was not researching that situation when I made them…

A couple things to remember…

On 20 September 1789, the age of legal majority was reduced to 21 for both men and women, confirmed in 1804, and parental permission was no longer required.

When the Code Napoleon came into effect in the early 1800s, it automatically repealed all previous laws, including the 1789 law I cite below. [See my piece on Eloping During the Regency and What the Code Napoleon Said About It.]

Note that under the Code Napoleon, there were different majority ages for different aspects of the law.

Given that Britain was at war during a good part of the Regency, one would either need to set his story AFTER the war had ended, or NOT have one’s couple elope to France. Having them elope to France during the war simply because it is supposedly easier than going north, and I would instantly toss the book. The author would need to have very strong reasons for them to go to France, other than it being easier than going to Scotland to have any hope of my continuing to read. Even having them elope to France after the war would be a big step to ask of most readers.

Moreover, there are other factors one needs to consider before pursuing this course.

In the early 19th century (and throughout the period we call the Regency) family consent was required for most marriages IN FRANCE. Women who had not attained their 21st/22nd (depending on which source one reads) birthday, and men who had not attained their 26th birthday, needed permission from a parent or guardian, though only the father’s permission was required if the parents were in disagreement.

If the parents refused consent for women aged between 22 and 25, or for men aged between 26 and 30, the couple had to make three written requests, at one-month intervals, seeking permission. If all three requests were denied, then one month after the third denial, a marriage license would be issued. For women over the age of 26 and men over the age of 30, only a single written request and denial was required. These requirements were, I guess, the state’s way of giving the couple an enforced cooling off period.

Both parties had to present birth certificates (or notarised acts in the case of lost or destroyed birth certificates), AND the parents’ death certificates if other relatives were acting as guardians, AND notarised acts of consent if the parents are unable to come to the town hall to give consent in person.

Foreigners in France were subject to the same laws, but with additional restrictions, depending on marriage law within their country of origin.

The French marriage would be legitimate in France, but France did not have reciprocity agreements with its European neighbors, meaning that the foreigner couple could not return to their own country and expect that the marriage would be considered valid. I do not know if there were reciprocity agreements in place with England, but I very much doubt it given the Code Napoleon was introduced before the Regency era proper began. 

In any event, to avoid issues of foreigners being stuck on French welfare rolls, the French government ordered its officials to ensure that foreigners adhere to all regulations of their country of origin before any marriage service was performed in France.

“Women had more or less control of their own lives depending on the specific area covered by the Code. For example, a female could not be forced to marry against her will, or marry at all before age 21 – but then not without the permission of her parents or grandparents.” [I ran into this bit when writing my way out of a forced marriage scenario in a book yet to be published.]

Therefore, if one is writing an elopement, it is a bad idea to have them elope to France because the couple would not have parental permission. All the rules of the local law had to be followed for the English courts to declare the marriage valid.

Georgette Heyer used that device in her book Cotillion, and I cannot remember if she brought a time frame into that particular book or not. Of course, that’s fiction!

Heyer also allowed a man to scratch out the name of the bride on a special license and substitute another, which is absolutely not valid.  I enjoy her books, but I never trust Heyer for legal details.

A marriage in France must also take into account that France was (and still is) mainly a Catholic country–not Church of England religion. Also, the Revolution threw out the church, but then Napoleon made up with the Pope, who was all for Napoleon being crowned Emperor, so it was back to being Catholic. All this means it was unlikely for an English couple to think about running away to marry in France. (Scotland is mainly Protestant.) Plus, how do you go about finding a church in which to marry? Most parishes wanted the couple to be a resident in the area for a set time before they would marry you [Remember that George Wickham had to live in St Clements for 15 days to be considered a resident of the area.], and most priests would want to make certain the couple were good Catholics, and they cannot do that if they do not know you.

In Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, “When Lydia remarks that “We were married, you know, at St. Clement’s, because Wickham’s lodgings were in that parish.” – she gives a clue that perhaps contemporary readers would not have found confusing, but we are left with not being completely sure which St. Clements she is referring to: St Clement Danes in the Strand, or St. Clement Eastcheap. Neither is mentioned in her extant letters.

“Pat Rogers notes in her 2006 Cambridge edition of Pride and Prejudice that the fairly large parish of St. Clement Danes had a population of 12,000 in 1801 and “contained areas of cheap lodgings and some raffish districts, notably a part of Drury Lane” (531-32). Most who have written on this would agree (see Kaplan and Fullerton cites below), largely because the other St. Clement (Eastcheap), on St. Clement’s Lane between Lombard Street and Great Eastcheap, would have been too close to the Gardiner’s who lived on Gracechurch Street [see maps for location of both churches]. Wickham would not have placed himself in such a smaller parish, with a population of 350 in 1801 (Rogers, 531), and so close to those who might find him out. Another reason that Rogers selects this as the best option is that in order to marry in this parish, one of the parties had to have residence there for fifteen days (Rogers, 532). Laurie Kaplan adds that “the length of time required for residency functions perfectly for the elopement plot of the novel, for tension increases the longer Lydia and Wickham remain unmarried” (Kaplan, 7).” 

What was an option for a time was the Isle of Man and the Isle of Wight – http://www.regencyhistory.net/2015/11/why-did-regency-lovers-elope-to-gretna.html

Unless the lovers had relatives in France, it is highly unlikely that they travelled there to marry. War conditions would really make it impossible for any Englishman to be in France from 1793 until 1814…you have only the brief peace in 1803.

Religion is also a bar with elopements to Spain, Tuscany, or any other country that is primarily Catholic, unless one of the couple is also Catholic with relatives in that country, and then the residency issue is no longer an issue. Now, one might try a run away and live in sin, particularly if the woman is a wife on the run from a husband or vice versa.

Of course, too, Mary Godwin and Percy Bysshe Shelley eloped to France in 1814, but they were in no way respectable, and he was still married to Harriet at the time, so I doubt that is what you’re looking for.

Sources used to help write the piece:

BookLadyDeb. “The Places of Pride and Prejudice: Where, Oh Where, Did Wickham and Lydia Marry? Or the Dilemma of the Two St Clements.” Jane Austen in Vermont Blog. 3 March 2013.

Laurie Kaplan. “London as Text: Teaching Jane Austen’s “London” Novels In Situ.” Persuasions On-Line 32.1 (2011).

Pat Rogers, ed. Pride and Prejudice: The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Jane Austen. Cambridge UP, 2006. Google link: http://books.google.com/books?id=yxIHAemJKM4C&lpg=PA531&ots=DK3PxqM79J&dq=st.%20clements%20pride%20and%20prejudice&pg=PA531#v=onepage&q=st.%20clements&f=false