Excommunication and the Order of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Regency England

Posted on October 10, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

First, let us define “excommunication” in general terms. Excommunication is an institutional act of religious censure used to deprive, suspend, or limit membership in a religious community or to restrict certain rights within it, in particular those of being in communion with other members of the congregation, and of receiving the sacraments.

It is practiced by all of the ancient churches (such as the Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox churches and the Eastern Orthodox churches) as well as by other Christian denominations; however, it is also used more generally to refer to similar types of institutional religious exclusionary practices and shunning among other religious groups.

The word excommunication means putting a specific individual or group out of communion. In some denominations, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the group, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community. The grave act is often revoked in response to manifest repentance.

In the Regency era, there were two types of excommunication: Lesser and greater.

In religious contexts, particularly within Catholicism, “greater” and “lesser” excommunication refer to different degrees of separation from the church. Lesser excommunication primarily restricts an individual from receiving sacraments, while greater excommunication entails a more severe exclusion from the church and its community. 

Lesser Excommunication: 

  • Restriction: Individuals are barred from participating in sacraments, especially the Eucharist (communion).
  • Remaining Connection: They may still be part of the church community, attending services, and receiving income from the church.
  • Purpose: It serves as a disciplinary measure, encouraging repentance and reconciliation. 

Greater Excommunication: 

  • Exclusion: Individuals are completely excluded from the church, its sacraments, and its community.
  • Symbolic Ritual: In some cases, a formal ceremony with candles may be involved.
  • Purpose: A more severe penalty, often for grave offenses, aiming to restore order and deter further transgressions. 

Some changes to practices were made in 1813 to permit the ecclesiastical courts to send people to the secular courts for contempt, instead of excommunicating them. Also, offenses involving church rites and tithes were to be sent to the secular courts, instead of through excommunication. One just deprives the offender of church services and sacraments–including marriage. This is pronounced in those who are obstinate and disobedient, such as not appearing at church court when summoned, not submitting to a penance, or not obeying another injunction of the court.

Lady Ferrers went to the House of Lords to request a separation from her husband the earl. She told them that her husband had no fear of the church courts or of being excommunicated so she feared he would not allow her to live in peace apart from him.

The greater excommunication deprived the man of church services and published his name abroad so that no church members who wanted to stay in good standing would have any communication or business with him. Those members were not to patronize his shop if he was a tradesman, for instance. He was not to be invited to dine or to visit or to attend a ball. Any member of the church in good standing was supposed to shun his society until he repent.

One could be excommunicated for refusing to have a child baptized, or for refusing to participate in the Lord’s Supper, or for idolatry, usury, simony, or perjury in the ecclesiastical courts. One could be excommunicated for fighting in church. Though the clergyman was to say that the person was excommunicated right then and there, it was truly necessary to have the bishop endorse the sentence to have any true effect. If a plaintiff is excommunicated, a defendant can tell the court so. He must do this before he answers the plaintiff. If he can prove the excommunication, he need not answer the plaintiff in court until the plaintiff has been admitted back into the good graces of the church.

All excommunicated persons were not to step into the church.

Obviously, anyone who pronounced himself an atheist and spoke out against the church could be excommunicated.

Other Sources:

The Steps for Excommunication

What Is Excommunication and Should Churches Practice It?

Why and How One is Excommunicated

One who refused to pay his tithes or who shortchanged the rector and vicar of their tithes could be excommunicated but after 1813 were likely to be sued in a secular court.

One guilty of defamation could be excommunicated.

One could also be excommunicated for refusing to go to church.

Those who socialize with a excommunicated person or trade with him can be excommunicated as well.

An excommunicated person could not be a witness in a court.

He could not be buried in church grounds. He could not have the burial service read over his body.

If a person be obstinate in refusing to answer or attend a church court, the church could ask the High Court of Chancery to sue out a writ which was to be answered in the Court of Kings’ bench. The writ is to be opened in King’s bench with all the justices present and handed to the sheriff to enforce. The Bench of Kings Court can put out notices to all and every sheriff and assize that the person is to be summoned if not found at the usual address. If it takes all these people and writs 

to find the person, he can be put into prison. he can be fined for not obeying.

If arrested he can’t have bail.

Posted in British history, Church of England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, real life tales, Regency era, religion | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Excommunication and the Order of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Regency England

Seeking a Military Furlough During the Regency Era

Posted on October 8, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

First, what is a “furlough”? A military furlough is a temporary, approved leave from active military service for a set period, typically without pay and often for reasons like an approved break, awaiting new orders, or returning to civilian life for a limited time. While on furlough, service members are still technically employed but are not receiving their regular compensation. The concept of furlough is an old one, originating as a way to grant soldiers permission to be absent from duty. 

During the British Regency era (1811–1820), military furlough was a privilege largely available to officers rather than enlisted soldiers. Requesting and receiving leave was heavily dependent on rank, social connections, and whether the regiment was on active campaign or garrison duty. 

“British Army during the Napoleonic Wars period saw rapid change. Up to 1790 the army was relatively small. At the beginning of 1793 it had barely 40,000 men but by the end of 1813 the regular army had grown to over 200,000 men but it contracted in subsequent years. However, vast numbers of men made up the Victorian army. Over 150,000 in 1851, over 200,000 in 1861 and 1871.” [Service in the British Army – see link below]

Leave for illness or wounds were assuredly given, as were general leaves or furloughs. For an officer, he could request it at any time, and the commander had to give it to him. Generally, for the common soldier, it was at the commander’s discretion. It was fairly useless when the soldier was in Spain or the colonies as he could nor go home. A common soldier had no money and no time usually for such a long journey. The commander would also have to believe the soldier was likely to come back… which was not necessarily a sure thing overseas. 

Such furloughs were not given out to enlisted men often. Those that received furlough would more than likely be:

  1. Older soldiers, long time enlisted men.
  2. Those the colonel specifically liked and/or trusted
  3. Those who would be traveling with an officer to the same village or location [Such as a Batman or soldier under the officer’s command—and the officer was willing to take responsibility for the soldier’s return.
  4. An official request from the military offices in England for court proceedings or such official business. The officer who delivered Wellington’s report of Waterloo with captured flags was not given furlough. He was on official business. The enlisted man who accompanied him was.

A death in the family, a birth of a child, inheritance or family distress was not in and of itself a promise of furlough, even in Great Britain proper.

OFFICERS

For gentlemen who had purchased their commissions, obtaining leave was a common practice, but it was not guaranteed. 

  • Procedure: A request would be submitted up the chain of command, often to the commanding officer of the regiment, who had the final say. For an officer with the right social or political connections, a request for a leave of absence was routinely approved, even to avoid going abroad with a regiment.
  • Circumstances for leave: Officers might request leave for personal business, to recover from illness, or simply for an extended holiday. Those serving in the militia, in particular, had a great deal of leave.
  • During wartime: During periods of intense fighting, like the Napoleonic Wars, an officer’s ability to take leave was far more limited than during peacetime garrison duty. 

ENLISTED SOLDIERS:

For the common soldier, the concept of a furlough to visit home was almost nonexistent. Enlistments were for long terms, sometimes for life, and regiments were often stationed far from their recruitment areas to discourage desertion. 

  • No guaranteed home leave: A private soldier would typically not return home until their enlistment expired or they were invalided out of the service due to age or injury. For a regiment serving overseas for a decade or more, a soldier might go many years without seeing family.
  • Some short-term leave: While stationed on garrison duty, a soldier might be given a few days’ leave to attend a local event. During overseas deployments, some limited furlough might be granted, particularly for soldiers serving in India who were accustomed to longer terms of service.
  • Harsh consequences for desertion: Leaving a regiment without permission was considered desertion, a crime with severe penalties, including flogging or even execution. High desertion rates during the Napoleonic Wars reflect the widespread desire to escape the harsh realities of military life. 

FOR AUTHORS TO WRITE SUCH SCENES THEY SHOULD CONSIDER THE REASON BEHIND THE REQUEST FOR A FURLOUGH:

To create a plausible scenario for requesting military leave during the Regency era, consider these details:

  • Identify the rank: Determine if the character is an officer or a common soldier, as this is the single most important factor.
  • Establish a reason: Provide a specific, justifiable reason for the request, such as family illness, handling an inheritance, or recovering from a wound.
  • Consider the location: The regiment’s location and whether it is at war or peace are crucial. A request is far more likely to be granted if the regiment is at home rather than on a campaign in Spain or Belgium.
  • Leverage social standing: For an officer, emphasize the role of social influence. A request might go directly to a sympathetic commanding officer, especially if the officer has a reputation for competence. For a private, it is less about a formal request and more about desperation, a last resort, or even an act of desertion. 

Other Sources:

Did Napoleon’s troops get home leave during the Napoleonic Wars or did they just not see their homes for many years?

Gentlemen’s Occupations

Military Officers During the Regency

Service in the British Army 1800-1900

The Regency Army Officer

To Be an Officer and a Gentleman

What Exactly Did It Mean to Be an Officer on Half Pay

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Living in the Regency, military, Napoleonic Wars, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Seeking a Military Furlough During the Regency Era

Freshening Up at a Regency Party? Or When Is It Appropriate to Use the “Facilities”?

Posted on October 6, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

If we were in need of using the facilities at a modern day party, we might excuse ourselves to the bathroom/restroom/or whatever one wishes to call it. No need to explain. No need to wait.

However, that was not always proper etiquette in Regency times. What excuse might a guest offer to use the water closet – the facility – the chamberpot? What would one say to one’s host and in front of everyone at the table? Moreover, where did one go? I have heard/read many stories where after the ladies excuse themselves from the table and the gentlemen are free to smoke, etc., that there were chamberpots behind screens where they might relieve themselves, but I always wondered would not said chamberpots STINK?

In my opinion, a man would be equally as inconvenience as a lady in such a situation. It reminds me of my days as a school teacher. School teachers are known to suffer from kidney problems for they must wait until lunch or their planning period to seek the restroom facilities.

If any one left the table, a footman would be sent to escort them to the proper facility.

Now, I probably have you wondering … if a lady had to “go” at some point while at the party, would simply say, “Please excuse me.” Is that right? What does one say in such situations? Even in modern times, we are often put in the most awkward situations because of the call of nature. LOL!

Ladies still do not want to draw attention to themselves leaving the table to go to the toilet. As to the Regency, I think most waited until the ladies left the room and then went. The men often used the pot  in the room, so we have heard, as soon as the ladies left. Yet, when planning a plot point, this whole slipping away is problematic. A writer wants to do it accurately, BUT …

Do you know the tale of the astromer Tycho Brahe who died after a dinner party where he would not leave the table because manners would not permit him to do so? Tycho suddenly contracted a bladder or kidney ailment after attending a banquet in Prague. He died eleven days later, on 24 October 1601, at the age of 54. According to Kepler’s first-hand account, Tycho had refused to leave the banquet to relieve himself because it would have been a breach of etiquette. Some accounts of Brahe dead say his bladder burst. I imagine that is the extreme. Even having to hold one’s bladder for say an hour to an hour and a half should not cause someone death, that is, unless there was a pattern of one doing so. [Back to the school teacher tales again!!!!]

How Tycho Brahe Really Died?

Tycho Brahe: Stellarum octavi orbis inerrantium accurata restitutio, 1598. Author’s portrait in this book. ~ Public Domain

We have come to believe that in Georgian England, it was one of those strict codes of behaviour that dictated not leaving the table once the meal was served, and that is why men and ladies separated right after the meal, not just for cigars and port, but also for that all-important chamber pot hidden in the cupboard. I assume the ladies had a somewhat more delicate solution. 

Bathroom etiquette is strange and interesting, even at the Royal Court. Apparently ladies in the Georgian courts were not allowed to leave the royal presence unless dismissed, which could take a very long time. They supposedly wore cups strapped under their gowns so they could go while standing in place. It kind of explains those hooped skirts. Still, think how carefully one must have moved so one’s cup did not, as they say, “runneth over,” I wonder how true this is. I am not, however, going down that research rabbit hole. I will permit another to correct or confirm that assumption on his own.

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Freshening Up at a Regency Party? Or When Is It Appropriate to Use the “Facilities”?

Sending Letters in the Regency Era. What of Envelopes?

Posted on October 3, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

Question from a Reader: I have seen a few images of letters from what is supposed to from the Regency Era, but none have envelopes. Why is that?

Answer: First, let me say you should check out this site. As 2025 is the 250th Anniversary of Jane Austen’s birthday, this piece from the Postal Museum on How Did Jane Austen Write Her Letters is perfect for both the anniversary celebration and this post.

I learned a great deal of this information from Author, Shannon Donnelly. I have this piece from Shannon’s blog earmarked: The Regency Post: A Pity We’ve Lost Letters.

https://www.postalmuseum.org/blog/how-did-jane-austen-write-her-letters/

Prior to the introduction of uniform penny postage in 1840 hardly any letters were sent in envelopes as they counted as an additional sheet and were charged as such. By 1855 however, it was estimated that 93% of domestic letters were sent in envelopes, allowing the development of curious addresses along with it.

I have seen a few pre-1840 “envelopes,” but they are very difficult to find. As best as I can tell in looking at the images, these are simply a sheet of paper folded in a manner to contain another sheet and then sealed with wax. A person can tell these are the envelopes because they will have a direction on one side and no letter written on the reverse side of the sheet. In the Georgian era, which includes the Regency, whoever wrote the letter was charged for the number of sheets he/she sent, so most folks only sent one sheet and would simply write, turn it and write across it again, turn it again and cross again diagonally. A good example of this is here: http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/4002-cross-writing-text-scarce-paper-used-in I cannot imagine how difficult this would have been to read. Once, another reader asked me why the writer did not simply write smaller. I told her I believe it would be difficult to write smaller, especially with the pens used and the dipping in ink, etc.

When searching out samples of correspondence in the Regency and Georgian era (or even before), a person would likely only find examples from the aristocracy and the gentry, for they could afford the cost of the letter. There are some examples from merchants and what was called a “man of business” (meaning an something similar to an accountant in modern speak).

Before there was the penny stamp required on letters after 1840, it was possible for a person to send a letter and the one receiving it had to pay for it, though it might be sent back if unpaid. Prisoners sometimes took advantage of this or those in the work houses.

An MP could frank a letter, but the idea of franking a letter was not in the same manner as we find in many Regency novels. Heck, I am guilty of having my hero able to frank his own letters in a few of my nearly 80 books.

In reality, those in Parliament were supposed to restrict their correspondence to business for the Crown. Obviously, why should the British government pay for letters not dealing with governmental business? Yet, it was seen as a privilege of those Members of Parliament, meaning those in the House of Commons, to pre-frank sheets and give them to friends and family to use.

And, yes, an MP could frank a letter so it went free, but this was supposed to be restricted to crown business (as in why should the crown pay itself for letters sent on it’s own business). But it was also common to leave pre-franked sheets with a friend for their use so the system was widely abused.

Posted in Act of Parliament, aristocracy, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Living in the UK, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sending Letters in the Regency Era. What of Envelopes?

Broken Engagements in the Regency Era

Posted on October 1, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

Once a man proposed to a woman, he was expected to go through with the marriage unless he suddenly uncovered a flaw in the morals of the lady. Sometimes engagements were called off when the fathers and guardians couldn’t agree on the settlements. If a man jilted one to whom he had proposed, he was thought to have found out something like she was unchaste. The only way to save the female’s reputation was for him to marry another quickly–or even before she knew she was jilted. The Hardwicke Marriage Act took the teeth out of betrothals in that they did nor already have a couple half married. If of age, the jilted person had the right to sue for breach of promise. Because betrothals and engagements were no longer enforced by the church, they were considered to rest on a man”s honor. The man can get away with jilting a female better than a girl could get away with being jilted. The couple often tried to make it appear that the woman changed her mind. More gossip and scandal stuck to her name; there was less blame attributed to him unless the girl’s family entered into a counter attack to shift the blame to him or to make it appear she broke the engagement. The appeal to honor was very strong. Both Wellington and Byron married women they didn’t want because they had once made the mistake of showing interest or of discussing marriage with her.

In Regency England, breaking an engagement was a serious affair, particularly for the man, who faced potential legal action and social repercussions if he broke it off. While a woman had more freedom to end the engagement, doing so could still damage her reputation. 

For the Man:

  • Breach of Promise:I f a man broke an engagement, he could be sued for “breach of promise” by the woman. 
  • Social Consequences: Breaking off an engagement was considered dishonorable and could damage a man’s reputation, making it difficult for him to find another suitable match. 
  • Legal Action: A man could be taken to court for breach of promise, and the damages awarded could be substantial, especially if the woman’s reputation had been damaged. 
  • Limited Exceptions: While a man could not break an engagement without legal or social repercussions, a woman could cry off (end the engagement) without legal penalty. 
  • Circumstances: If a man discovered a woman was of bad character or had behaved improperly, he could potentially break the engagement, but this was not common and often required proof. 

For the Woman:

  • Greater Freedom to Break Engagement: A woman had more freedom to end an engagement than a man. 
  • Social Consequences: Even though a woman could break the engagement, doing so could still damage her reputation, especially if she was seen as fickle or “a jilt”. 
  • Reasons for Breaking: If a woman broke an engagement, it was often for reasons like the man’s bad character, financial instability, or her own change of heart. 
  • Seeking Redress: If a woman broke off an engagement, she might seek compensation for the damage to her reputation, even if she was not legally obligated to do so. 

Overall:

  • Engagement as a Binding Contract: In the Regency era, an engagement was a serious commitment, often treated as a near-marriage contract. 
  • Social Expectations: Social expectations and the desire to maintain one’s reputation heavily influenced how engagements were handled, according to a blog post. 
  • Impact on Reputation:Breaking an engagement, especially for a man, could have long-lasting and detrimental effects on his social standing and prospects. 
Broken Engagements: The Action for Breach of Promise of Marriage and the Feminine Ideal, 1800-1940 (Oxford Studies in Modern Legal History)
by Saskia Lettmaier 

That is the bare bones of it–the woman generally paid the price unless they could successfully claim she felt they wouldn’t suit–however, how society reacted depended on the woman’s dowry, her family position, and the same for the man. If a great heiress was jilted people would be careful not to blame her too much because they would want a chance for a son or nephew to marry her. A rich peer or a rich young man was always a good catch and a father or guardian of the next young lady to catch his eye would make certain he made it to the altar.

To summarize, a woman could cry off, but she had to beware being labeled a “jilt.”  (1670s, “loose, unchaste woman; harlot;” also “woman who gives hope then dashes it;” probably a contraction of jillet, gillet, from Middle English gille “lass, wench,”)

A man who promised marriage and cried off could be sued for breach of promise (particularly if the promise was in writing – you had to prove the promise and damages). Or he might just be labeled as bad ton. There were a few cases of men winning breach of promise suits. Good reference for you on that: Broken Engagements: The Action for Breach of Promise of Marriage…By Saskia Lettmaier. Not everyone would sue for breach of promise–it involved there being damages (to the daughter, leaving her unable to marry), so upper class might be inclined to sweep the whole thing aside as soon as possible so the social stain might be forgotten. Either way, it was poor form. You weren’t supposed to accept unless you really meant to go through with it.

Posted in British history, Church of England, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Jane Austen, laws of the land, marriage, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

When Would the New Peer Be Addressed as Such? How Can One Prove Himself the Next Peer?

Posted on September 29, 2025 by Regina Jeffers
Wax impression of the Great Seal of the Realm which is affixed to all letters patent creating new peerages ~ Public Domain

Question: When is the new peer properly addressed by his title after the death of the previous title holder?

The man is the peer immediately,  and servants, solicitors and such might address him by his new title, but it was a matter of courtesy to the widow and any children to wait until after the funeral. It wasn’t a legal matter but more a matter of etiquette. Because it wasn’t a matter of law but of custom, there was a wide variation in observance.

The British nobility in the narrow sense consists of Peers. Members of the peerage carry the titles of duke, marquess, earl, viscount or baron (in Scotland historically lord of parliament). British peers are sometimes referred to generically as lords, although individual dukes are not so styled when addressed or by reference, and those holding some offices are afford the title “Lord” by courtesy.

All modern British peerage dignities are created directly by the Crown and take effect when letters patent are issued, affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm. The Sovereign is considered to be the fount of honour and, as “the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself”, [Opinion of the House of Lords in the Buckhurst Peerage Case] cannot hold a British peerage. Peerages inherited by the Crown, for example those held by the Prince of Wales upon the demise of the monarch, merge with it and can be regranted to a new individual.

Membership in the Peerage is strictly personal and for life (life peerages) though often heritable (hereditary peerages) primarily by agnatic primogeniture with some exceptions. All British subjects who are not themselves Peers of the Realm are technically commoners, regardless of ancestry, wealth, or other social factors. This includes Princes of the United Kingdom who have not yet been granted a Peerage. The term “Commoner” does not imply that the person is not noble in the Continental sense, but rather that he is not a Peer and is therefore entitled to be elected to the House of Commons.

Unlike the feudal titles they replaced, peerages are personal title that cannot be transferred, bought, or sold by the title holder. Historically monarchs sold peerage titles under limited circumstances. This was often done to raise funds. For example, in the early Stuart period, King James I sold peerages, adding sixty-two peers to a body that had included just fifty-nine members at the commencement of his reign. Some governments through history also sold peerages to fund government activities, or more controversially, party activities. The selling of peerage grants by a government was made illegal in 1925 with the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. The act was the result of the administration of David Lloyd George selling a high number of controversial peerages. The Blair administration was later accused of trying to skirt this law in 2006 in the so called “Cash-for-Honours scandal”, as was an aide of Prince Charles in the 2021 Cash-for-Favours scandal.

Question: So if the heir had an honorary title of viscount, they might call him to the house under that title?

No. He would only be called to the House of Lords in his father’s barony– if the father had one.

He would be a Viscount socially but a baron in Parliament.

Question: Along the lines of a guardian being assigned for insanity, what about physical incapacity like chronic illness or stroke? Would an earl’s heir have to take over House duties, or would that seat just remain empty?

No one could attend the House of Lords in a peer’s place while he is alive. What could be done, if the peer is an earl or higher, is to call the heir to the House of Lords on an accelerated writ in one of his father’s baronies. Otherwise, the seat remains empty during his lifetime.

That happened when the Earl of Portsmouth was officially declared mentally incompetent.  He was still earl even though he was not sent a writ to attend the House of Parliament.

Question: Does the next in line need to get hold of the title? If the son is crazy or otherwise incapacitated, perhaps the next in line could be made his guardian and manage the affairs of the earldom. In other words, be the earl in all but name.

If a peer is “crazy” a commission is appointed to see to his affairs and a guardian is appointed to care for his person. This would not be the person who could inherit if he died.

However, the heir could be appointed to care for the lands and property under the umbrella of the commission set by the court in Chancery.

Though the peer is unable to attend Parliament or marry, he is still the peer and no one can take his seat or have his privileges until he dies.

Once a person has been accepted as the new peer and has received his writ of summons to the House of Lords, any who wants to unseat him are unlikely. Parliament does not readily, or perhaps, ever, admit to mistakes so if a person is sent a writ of summons, that means the person is a peer.

All questions of legitimacy or who is the heir has to be determined after the death of the current peer and before the reception of a writ by the applicant, whether the next peer is the son or some distant cousin.

Two men claiming as cousins to a recently deceased peer put forth their claims to a peerage. Both presented  boxes of documentation. After much deliberation, one of the men was declared to be the rightful heir and was seated as the peer. The loser came back with a document he said proved that the other man was actually illegitimate. He was told “Too bad. Sorry, but the evidence should have been presented earlier.”  

Take as one example the dispute between Shedden v. Patrick, a lengthy and complex legal dispute concerning a Scottish peerage and questions of legitimacy. 

  • Contesting Claims: Two individuals (cousins) vying for a peerage, each presenting extensive documentation to support their claim.
  • Illegitimacy as a Key Issue: The central point of contention revolved around the legitimacy of William Shedden’s children, and their right to inherit properties in Scotland.
  • Differing Interpretations of Law: The claimants’ arguments were based on contrasting legal interpretations regarding the legitimation of children: Scots law (legitimation upon marriage of parents) versus English common law (children born illegitimate not legitimated by subsequent marriage).
  • Late or Undiscovered Evidence: The consequences of late evidence submission in such cases is apparent in this situation. The Shedden v. Patrick litigation dragged on for decades, highlighting the difficulty of altering established legal decisions based on new information. 

This case exemplifies the intricate legal and societal considerations surrounding peerage succession, particularly when questions of legitimacy and differing legal systems were involved. 

For another example, look at the Sussex Peerage Case of 1844. In a claim of Peerage, where the question was whether the deceased Peer, the father of the claimant, had been married or not, a Prayer-book, found after the death of the claimant’s mother among her papers, was received, and an entry made in her handwriting, declaring the tact of the marriage, read from it, not as conclusively proving that fact, but as a declaration of it made by one of the parties at the time.  

Posted in Act of Parliament, aristocracy, British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian Era, Great Britain, heraldry, history, laws of the land, peerage, primogenture, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on When Would the New Peer Be Addressed as Such? How Can One Prove Himself the Next Peer?

Dance Sets? How Long? What Kind of Dances? All the Goodies to Know …

Posted on September 29, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

Question: If I am not mistaken, at balls, etc., dances were done in sets of two. If that’s true, were they the same kind of dance, or two different kinds of dances, such a country dance and then a quadrille? Also, did people follow that same format in less formal settings such as a country ball or dancing after a dinner party or during a house party. 

Response: To the best of my knowledge, the general custom was to have dances in sets of two. They were usually the same type of dances. After every two sets there would be a fast single dance like a boulanger, jig, etc. These single tunes were for a change of tempo. Local assemblies could be more informal.

Either the Master of Ceremony in the local assemblies or one of the organizers of the event decided which kind of dance it would be.

Formal balls and court balls still opened with the minuet, but that was otherwise forgotten.

Dancing at a house party would be noticeably more informal than anything held in a public assembly room, even a very small assembly room like that in Jane Austen’s “The Watsons.”  If the house party is small enough, and the folks all know each other, I think a writer can do anything he/she wants in writing the scene;  ditto with. This would also prove impromptu dancing at a dinner party where everyone knows each other.

For more proof of the paired dances at public assemblies, etc., one might look to our beloved Jane Austen’s Emma. In it, Frank Churchill tells Emma that the party he has been planning and which will be hosted by his father, Mr. Weston, has been moved to an inn because of its larger rooms.

     Before the middle of the next day, he [Frank Churchill] was at Hartfield; and he entered the room with such an agreeable smile as certified the continuance of the scheme.  It soon appeared that he came to announce an improvement.

    “Well, Miss Woodhouse,” he almost immediately began, “your inclination for dancing has not been quite frightened away, I hope, by the terrors of my father’s little rooms.  I bring a new proposal on the subject: — a thought of my father’s, which waits only your approbation to be acted upon.  May I hope for the honour of your hand for the two first dances of this little projected ball, to be given, not at Randalls, but at the Crown Inn?”

Though, even Austen does not say whether a country dance might be paired with a minuet. It appears to be only a pairing of country dances. Would it not be lovely to be able to ask an expert these questions?

Oh, and if anyone’s interested, chapters 28-29 of Emma have quite a nice lot of details about planning a small private ball and the type of dancing to be expected at such an event.

Other Sources:

Dancing at the Netherfield Ball

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, dancing, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dance Sets? How Long? What Kind of Dances? All the Goodies to Know …

Wonderful 5+ Stars Review of “Lyon’s Obsession” from N.N. Book Heaven

Posted on September 26, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

Lord Alexander Dutton wants to marry Lady Theodora Duncan, but he knows he can’t be truly happy until he finds his mother and sister. Apparently, his father sold them to the captain of a sailing ship. Ten years later, he spent a fortune trying to locate them. His heart is conflicted when he sees Lady Theodora on the arm of a count. Doesn’t she want to wait for him? If he continues on his mission to find his mother and sister, he might lose Lady Theodora. Torn between love and family, will Alexander sacrifice one for the other?

Lyon’s Obsession is an emotion-filled Regency romantic suspense I couldn’t put down. For those of you who are familiar with The Lyon’s Den Connected World series, you will want to read this book. It’s everything you expect from this series and more. Regina Jeffers infuses suspense into Lyon’s Obsession, and it makes it impossible to put down.

The characters, though, are what makes Lyon’s Obsession such a riveting read. Alexander is a man on a mission. His obsession with finding and reuniting with his mother and sister rules his life. It interferes with his courting Lady Theodora. I found his drive to be fascinating. Obsession is the right word. He’s blindsided when Theodora appears to have moved on. What happens next is what makes Alexander a swoon-worthy hero.

If you love historical romance set in the Regency period with heavy doses of suspense, you’ll want to read Lyon’s Obsession. It’s a true masterpiece by Regina Jeffers.

My Rating: 5+ stars

Buy it Now:

Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FMBJ22TR

Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/240105372-lyon-s-obsession

BookBub:

https://www.bookbub.com/books/lyon-s-obsession-the-lyon-s-den-connected-world-by-regina-jeffers?_gl=1*se6vfn*_gcl_au*MTA2MTk4MDg2Ni4xNzUzMDE3NDMzLjk4NjMxMTk4Ni4xNzU1MTY5NjQ1LjE3NTUxNjk2NDU.*_ga*MTE5NzAyMjI2NC4xNzUzMDE3NDMz*_ga_CQ6ZYMZH0N*czE3NTUxNjk1NzIkbzQkZzEkdDE3NTUxNjk4NzQkajExJGwwJGgw

Author Biography:

Regina Jeffers writes books about corsets, rakes, daring heroines, dashing heroes and all aspects of the Georgian/Regency era. She is an award winning author of cozy mysteries, historical romantic suspense, and Austenesque vagaries. Jeffers has been a Smithsonian presenter and Martha Holden Jennings Scholar, as well as having her tales honored by, among others, the Daphne du Maurier Award for Excellence in Mystery/Suspense, the Frank Yerby Award for Fiction, the International Digital Awards, and the Chanticleer International Book Award.

Posted in aristocracy, book release, British history, Dragonblade Publishers, heroines, historical fiction, mystery, Regency era, Regency romance, suspense | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wonderful 5+ Stars Review of “Lyon’s Obsession” from N.N. Book Heaven

Changing One’s Name During the Regency

Posted on September 24, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

I wish I could recall where I encountered this information, but I cannot. Therefore, I must apologize up front if someone shared it with me, and I am not giving them credit or whether I read it in a Facebook post. 

41Mu6hBzOXL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg The question was whether a person could legally change his/her name during the Regency Period [and I would assume during the Georgian Period, as a whole]. A book was suggested: An Index to Changes of Names: Under Authority of Act of Parliament or Royal Licence and Including Irregular Changes from I George III to 64 Victoria. 1760-1901. [ William Phillimore Watts Phillimore and Edward Alexander Fry, Forgotten Books, 17 October 2017] It is one of those books that is reproduced from the original artifact, meaning it is in the public domain.

Here is the book blurb for the book from Amazon: The sources from which this index has been compiled are several. Primarily it is based on the Changes of Name by Royal licence. For this purpose the volumes of the London Gazette, and also the Dublin Gazette from 1760 to 1901 were examined, but it must be remembered that not all Royal licences are advertised in the Gazettes, though the vast majority are so advertised for obvious reasons of convenience, and often also in the Times and other newspapers. Registration at Heralds’ College only, is a sufficient compliance with the Royal licence granted. 

Contrary to popular belief, it has always been possible to change your name without having to register the change with any official body. It is still perfectly legal for anyone over the age of 16 to start using a new name at any time, as long as they are not doing so for a fraudulent or illegal reason.

According to The National Archives: “The Index to Changes of Name for UK and Ireland 1760-1901 by WP Phillimore and Edward Alex Fry is made up of information from the following sources:

  • Private Acts of Parliament
  • Royal Licences published in the London and Dublin Gazettes
  • notices of changes of name published in The Times after 1861 with a few notices from other newspapers
  • registers of the Lord Lyon [King of Arms] where Scottish changes of name were commonly recorded
  • records in the office of the Ulster King at Arms
  • some private information

It does not include

  • changes by Royal licence not advertised in the London Gazette
  • changes by deed poll that were enrolled but not advertised in The Times

First, let us address those “Under Authority of Parliament” and those under “Royal Licence.” What did that mean? Staying with The National Archives, we learn: “

Royal licences to a change of name were common in the 18th and 19th centuries, but in later years would be issued where:

  • an inheritance depended on someone taking the deceased’s name
  • marriage settlement required a husband to adopt his wife’s name
  • a change of name also required a change to a coat of arms

Information relating to Royal licences can be found in:

  • The National Archives
  • The London Gazette
  • The Royal College of Arms

“The National Archives holds a small number of warrants for Royal licences to changes of name in the following series of records (please note they are not searchable online):

  • SP 44 for the period up to 1782
  • HO 38 from 1782 to February 1868
  • HO 142 from February 1868 onwards

“There is also some correspondence describing individual examples of changes of name in:

  • HO 45 for the period 1841-1871
  • HO 144 for the period 1868-1959

“The London Gazette can be searched by name on The Gazette website for any references to changes of name.

“Some changes of name were made by a private Act of Parliament – usually for the same reasons as those made by Royal licence (see above). This was fairly common in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but since 1907 has only been used once.

“Acts of Parliament are published in printed volumes arranged by year. The National Archives library has a set as do some other libraries. It may be helpful to:

“For more information on where to see copies of private Acts click on the link and scroll to point 6. The Parliamentary Archives also has records relating to change of name by Act of Parliament. See their website for details of how to visit.”

 Wikipedia’s article on Name Change tells us: “From the mediaeval age to the 19th century, the era of family dynasties, name changes were frequently demanded of heirs in the last wills and testaments, legacies and bequests, of members of the gentry and nobility who were the last males of their bloodline. Such persons frequently selected a younger nephew or cousin as the heir to their estates on condition that he should adopt the surname and armorials of the legator in lieu of his patronymic. Thus the ancient family otherwise destined to extinction would appear to continue as a great dynasty in the making. Such changes were also more rarely demanded by marriage settlements, for example where the father of a sole daughter and heiress demanded that as a condition of his daughter’s dowry her husband should adopt his father-in-law’s surname and arms. Thus the progeny of the marriage would continue the otherwise extinct family’s name. Such name changes were generally only demanded of younger sons, where an elder brother was available to inherit the paternal estates under primogeniture and carry on the name and arms abandoned by the younger brother. Such name changes were effected by obtaining a private Act of Parliament or by obtaining a Royal Licence. A less radical procedure adopted from the 18th century onwards was for the legator or settlor to demand only that the legatee or beneficiary should adopt his surname in addition to his patronymic, not in place of it, which gave rise to the ‘double-barrelled,’ even the ‘triple-barrelled name, frequently parodied in literature as epitomising the wealthy ‘squirearchy’ with an embarrassment of inherited estates.

Well known examples are:

  • Russell to Gorges (14th century). Ralph IV Gorges, 2nd Baron Gorges, died without issue in 1331. In an effort to preserve his family name and arms he made one of his younger nephews his heir, on condition that he should adopt the name and arms of Gorges. This nephew was William Russell, the second son of his second sister Eleanor de Gorges who had married Sir Theobald Russell (d.1341) of Kingston Russell, Dorset. The event is referred to in one of the earliest heraldic law cases brought concerning English armory, Warbelton v. Gorges in 1347. 
  • Smithson to Percy (18th century). Sir Hugh Smithson, 4th Baronet (1715-1786) (c.1714-`786) in 1740 married Lady Elizabeth Seymour, daughter and sole heiress of Algernon Seymour, 7th Duke of Somerset, and granddaughter of Lady Elizabeth Percy (d.1722), daughter and sole heiress of Josceline Percy, 11th Earl of Northumberland (1644-1670). In 1740, by a private Act of Parliament, Smithson changed his surname to Percy and inherited the title Earl of Northumberland and was later created Duke of Northumberland.  

edwardknight-234x300.jpgFor those of you who relate everything I write to Austen, I offer Edward Knight. Edward Austen was the only Austen brother not to have a profession. Early in the 1780’s he was adopted by Mr. Austen’s Patron, the rich but childless Thomas and Catherine Knight. Instead of going off to University, He was sent on the “grand tour” of continental Europe in 1786-1788, and eventually inherited their estate of Godmersham, Kent, and took the last name of “Knight”. 

James_Edward_Austen-Leigh.jpg austen-leigh-james_edward-memoir-B20137-53.jpgA Memoir of Jane Austen, published in 1869, is the earliest full-length biography of Jane Austen, and the only one written by someone she knew. Its author, James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1894), was her nephew, the son of her eldest brother James and his second wife Mary Lloyd. The “Leigh” faction of Jane Austen’s family comes from her mother’s side, Cassandra, youngest daughter of the Rev. Thomas Leigh, of the family of Leighs of Warwickshire, who, having been a fellow of All Souls, held the College living of Harpsden, near Henley-upon-Thames. Mr. Thomas Leigh was a younger brother of Dr. Theophilus Leigh, a personage well known at Oxford in his day, and his day was not a short one, for he lived to be ninety, and held the Mastership of Balliol College for above half a century. 

Changing one’s name was generally as easy as simply telling people to “call me Jones instead of Smith” sort of thing. The name couldn’t be blasphemous or profane , nor could one change one’s name to that of princess or prince. [Do you remember on the episode of “Friends,” after Phoebe marries Mike, she decides to change her name. At the department, she learns that she can change it to anything she likes. Her new name becomes Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock. Mike is not too happy about this, and decides to retaliate to this by changing his name to Crap Bag. Finally Phoebe becomes aware of the mistake she made and decides to rectify it, changing her name to Phoebe Buffay-Hannigan.]

However, when a legacy/inheritance was involved, a more formal means was practiced, for a person’s name was considered part of his identity and was not to be changed in a casual manner. It was given and recorded at the sacrament of Baptism/Christening, and it was confirmed at Confirmation. A change in a baptismal name could result in a marriage being invalidated. That being said, the bishop sometimes changed names at Confirmation if he found them displeasing. One could not change his/her name in order to commit fraud or to cheat one’s creditors or to commit bigamy.

Nancy Mayer at Regency Researcher provides a variety of actual name changes during the Regency and earlier Victorian years. “The prime reason people changed their names was to receive a legacy. That sort of name change cost £50. Though people often substituted one surname for another one, they quite as frequently just added a name to the surname they already had. Earl of Jersey added ‘Child’ to the family surname in compliance with the will of Robert Child who was grandfather of Lady Jersey. Even Byron added Noel to his surname. He and Lord Holland incorrectly added names to their titles as well, probably in an excess of caution as to fulfilling the terms of some will. Fanny Burney wrote a novel based on a legacy to a girl of a tidy fortune when she married if her husband would change his name to that of the benefactor. The man who said he loved her refused to change his name so left her prey to all sorts of problems.

“Most people were willing to change or add a surname  if the change came with money.In Jane Austen’s family there are the Austen Knights and Austen Leighs. Byron added Noel to Byron and Jersey added Child to Villiers. Some families had four surnames. Some families did change surname to appear more aristocratic or sophisticated. A Davy Jones , tired of jokes about his lover or  the ocean, changed his name to David St.Paul. One man– a Thomas J Jones had his son’s name changed from Vere Jones to Vere Jones Vere. Deadman changed to Dedman. The name given a child at baptism wasn’t supposed to be changed except that the Bishop could do so at confirmation if he felt the name was inappropriate. Some thought that a person could only marry by a baptismal or legally changed name. The courts  treated each case separately.”

As noted above, there was a fee for a name change that could, literally, run into the hundreds of pounds. If one changed the name for one’s own pleasure one paid £10. If a will or other document required it, the price went up to £50. Then there was the cost of the advertisements and recording the change in the College of Arms.

The Regency Researcher also explains: “One obtained a royal license to change one’s name by making a application through the Herald’s office. It had to be drawn up with care so as to achieve the exact name requested.
The Royal license is given under the Sign Manual and privy Seal and is countersigned by the Secretary of State for the Home department. The cost was 10£ when changed for one’s own reason’s but the stamp tax paid for a change according to a will was , as I mentioned, 50£. Those fees were the stamp duty. Other fees were charged. 
£ 34 to have the name recorded  by the College of heralds. 
£ 10 to the Exchequer 
£ 2 2s to advertise the name change in the Gazette 
66£ additional if a coat of arms is issued at the time.”

A deed poll is a legal contract involving only one party. Changes of name by deed poll were (and are) made before a solicitor who issues the document to the person changing his name. The solicitor may keep a copy on file, but it is unlikely to be a certified copy, and the file is unlikely to be kept for more than five years. The person changing his name can ask his solicitor to ‘enrol’ the deed poll, for safekeeping, in the Enrolment Books of the Supreme Court of Judicature (formerly the Close Rolls of Chancery). However, this is not free, and most people decide against it, making it more difficult to trace a name for genealogy purposes. 

Research by any of the heralds was an extra charge  as was research into antecedents for coats of  arms. So, a person needing to change a name to receive a legacy had to pay around £100 if he already had a coat of arms.

Resources: 

Jane Austen 

The National Archives

Regency Researcher

Wikipedia 

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, customs and tradiitons, family, Georgian England, history, Inheritance, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, peerage, real life tales, Regency era, research, titles of aristocracy, tradtions | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Question from Reader Regarding “Abeyance” and Daughters Inheriting

Posted on September 22, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

Question: I was looking for names and titles I could use for a story in an older copy of Debrett’s. Some of the titles in abeyance had been in that state since the 1200 hundreds.  One  peerage was called out of abeyance in 1836 after 400 years or so. I think it was in the late 19th or early 20th century after a couple of peerages were sued for and  won when they had been in abeyance for 400 or so years that Parliament passed a rule that no more peerages would be called out of abeyance after a century. What else could you add?

Answer: While most peerages were created by patent and become extinct when they are no longer any male heirs, some peerages were created when a man was called to the House of Lord by a writ of summons issued in his peerage title. A writ of summons is a formal document issued by the monarch that enables someone to sit in a Parliament under the United Kingdom’s Westminster system. At the beginning of each new Parliament, each person who has established their right to attend Parliament is issued a writ of summons. Without the writ, they are unable to sit or vote in Parliament. [Parliament UK]

As silly as it may sound, for assuredly somewhere a mistake was made in writing out these documents, if the clerk made a mistake and wrote the wrong title then a new peerage was created. These peerages by writ could descend to both sons and daughters. However, if a man had several sons, the peerage went to the oldest, the practice was that sisters shared equally. If a holder of a barony had four daughters and no sons, all four ladies would share equally in property, but none of them would actually hold the title. This title would remain in abeyance until such time as one descendant survived and was willing and able to do a detailed family tree accounting for all the sisters and their children for how many years or decades since the death of the last peer. By the fifth generation the families probably forgot there was  ever a matter of a peerage title.

It was an arduous task to show all of the children of the last peer, when born, when died, when married to whom, with proofs from parish registers about marriages and baptisms, as well as records of deaths. The successful claimant need not be the only surviving descendent of the sisters, but the descendant of the oldest sister had a bit of precedence over the descendants of the younger sisters.

When peerages are in abeyance, the birth of a son to one of the sisters does not automatically make him the successor to all of the sisters.  

Secondary peerages are dormant titles if there are no heirs to bear them or if the heir is not given a peerage title. 

A title is also dormant when it is known or suspected that male heirs exist somewhere, but that they have not come forward to claim the title.

It is my understanding, for example, that the Avonmore peerage is dormant because one of the sons of the 3rd viscount went off to Australia, where he was known to have married and  had a child. However, no one ever came forward to claim the peerage, so it is dormant. If  it was known that there were no longer any male heirs left alive , the peerage will be considered extinct.

Frederick Berkeley, 5th Earl of Berkley was also the baron of Berkeley, He had married Mary Cole and had ten children, but 5 were declared illegitimate in 1811, after Frederick’s death in 1810. There was a question of the date of Frederick and Mary’s marriage. Although they both claimed it occurred on 30 March 1785, the incontrovertible proof offered at the time was the marriage occurred at Lambeth Church, Surrey, on 16 May 1796. Thus, the earldom was presented to their fifth child (the others being illegitimate), son, age 16 at the time, Thomas Morton Fitzhardinge Berkely. Because the young man was alive, but too frightened or loyal to his oldest brother and his mother, he never claimed the peerage and never took his seat in the House of Lords. The earldom of Berkeley remained dormant until Thomas died, unmarried and without issue. Then the Berkeley earldom went to a descendent of a younger legitimate  brother. At that time a female descendent of an older legitimate brother petitioned to have the barony awarded to her.  After proving her descent and that the barony was a barony by writ, she succeeded.

Extinct indicates the peerage has no more heirs at all or no more male heirs if a peerage by patent.

Dormant means a peerage has been swallowed up in a superior title or an unclaimed peerage when a likely successor is known to be alive. 

Abeyance means daughters shared equally in the right of succession so the prize goes to the descendent who either out lives the others or can prove she or he has a better claim than the  cousins. 

For more information on how a peerage is swallowed up in a superior title, visit: 

http://www.regencyresearcher.com

The Prince Regent could not call a title out of abeyance, but he could grant a title in a second creation that had become extinct. Titles in abeyance have known contenders and usually start with a title available to daughters. When daughters inherit, they all do equally, so the title is in abeyance until one claimant is given the right to it. The numbering starts over. I used this point in my book Captain Frederick Wentworth’s Persuasion. 

Abeyance is when there is more than one claimant to a title. This usually happens when a peerage by writ is inherited by daughters. It remains in abeyance until it is called out by one of the claimants. One title was claimed after 400 years. Afterwards, Parliament decided to limit the statute for such claims to 100 years. 

When there are no title holders to be found and no people presumed to be around, the title becomes extinct and reverts to the Crown.

The title is dormant, if a person who is thought to be alive, but just has not claimed it. The baby would be the duke, and the title would be alive during the child’s life time unless proof can be found of his death.

Charles I attempted to withhold a writ of summons for John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol in 1626. ~ Public Domain

The law, however, is not without its remedy for this anomalous situations. It vests in the Crown a power by its prerogative of selecting one of the co-heirs, or the heir of one of the co-heirs, to take the peerage, and so soon as the Crown has declared its will in this respect, the peerage descends to the person thus selected. The usual mode in which the Crown has made its selection has been by causing a Writ of Summons to be issued to the person selected, or, if such person be a woman, by causing Letters Patent be made determining the abeyance in her favour. Where the person selected is already a peer, the abeyance has also been determined in his favor by Letters Patent. The heir in whose favour an abeyance is thus terminated takes the peerage and holds it to him and the heirs of his body. This is not a new peerage, but, rather, the old peerage with the old precedence. (The Peerage Law Handbook, p. 100-101).

According to one of the peerage law books, the ONLY power a monarch retained over a title once it was granted was the power to choose from amongst co-heirs and terminate an abeyance in the favor of one of them. It almost never happened, but it is technically possible that as Regent, Prince George, the Prince of Wales, could, in fact, have done this if the hero in an author’s next Regency romance is somewhere in the line of co-heirs. 

A claim to royal descent should have been made when the Duke died in 1820. Once he died, it was unlikely that any one would take any claim seriously. Royals had to have permission  to marry no matter their age.

 The claim would probably be made to the College of Arms and  the Privy Council. Such a claim would be different from a claim to a seat in the House of Lords.  However, it would take an hour to be dismissed because of the Royal marriage Act.

The Royal Marriage Act said no descendant of  George II, male or female, other than the issue of princesses who had married or might thereafter marry “into foreign families”, could marry without the consent of the reigning monarch, “signified under the great seal and declared in council”. That consent was to be set out in the licence and in the register of the marriage, and entered in the books of the  Privy Council. Any marriage contracted without the consent of the monarch was to be null and void.

However, any member of the Royal Family over the age of 25 who has been refused the sovereign’s consent may marry one year after giving notice to the Privy Council of their intention to so marry, unless both houses of Parliament expressly declare their disapproval. There is, however, no instance in which the sovereign’s formal consent in Council has been refused. The Act further made it a crime to perform or participate in an illegal marriage of any member of the Royal Family.

Posted in Act of Parliament, aristocracy, British history, fashion, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Inheritance, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, primogenture, real life tales, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Question from Reader Regarding “Abeyance” and Daughters Inheriting