ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Literature Text
Copyright (C) 2012 by Kevin L. O'Brien
In Great Britain, there are three primary ways that property such as estates, homes, titles, and arms can be inherited by the aristocracy. However, they are all based on two general principles. The first is the indivisibility of property, while the second is patrilineal preference.
Indivisibility of property is the idea that all property is inherited by a single heir rather than divided between multiple heirs. It is easy to understand that titles can only be claimed by one person at a time, but most people would assume that homes, estates, and arms are owned by all family members in common, and that other property will be divided between the available heirs, if not always equally. However, the basis for this principle is the old European feudal system wherein land was the basis for power. Among the ancient Celtic Britons, property, such as land and cattle, was divided between all heirs, female as well as male, because everyone, including the warrior elite, needed it to survive. The Anglo-Saxons did much the same, though their traditions were somewhat more complicated; for example, a single person might inherit, but he or she would be that person the family decided could best manage the estate, and not necessarily the oldest or male.
But this idea was anathema to the Normans. To them land represented military and political power because of the fortifications and titles that came with it. To them it made no sense to divide up land between several heirs, because that not only resulted in less production per person, but also a division of political power among several potential rivals, with the one holding the castle being in the strongest position. Such could lead to internecine conflict that would weaken the family even if one heir emerged victorious. In other words, in the same way several heirs cannot share a title, neither should they be allowed to share the power attached to the land, so Norman law prescribed that the land, and thus the power, should pass to a single heir, particularly the oldest living male. This led to the tradition that the other heirs would join the clergy and the military to make their own way in the world, which sometimes resulted in a priest or soldier inheriting the family property when the firstborn heir died. (Male heirs, that is; females were married off to better the fortunes of the family.) Even if they did not, however, having family in positions of ecclesiastical and military power was considered beneficial.
Originally, titles, arms, and estates came with the grant of land, but by the time of the Norman conquest of England, that had become reversed; people were invested with titles which included grants of land with estates. That reinforced the principle of indivisibility, because whereas before a land holder could break off small parcels of land and grant them to minor members of a family without affecting the prestige of his position, a title holder who did the same would damage the prestige of his title, and thereby his own political and social standing. As a result, the title itself and the property attached to it became known as a "dignity". In later centuries this principle became codified into laws that went so far as to deny aristocrats the right to sell any part of the collective property associated with their dignity. This inadvertently led to the phenomenon of a land-rich but money-poor aristocracy in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, as they lost their tenant farmers to colonization and industrialization. Those who did not go bankrupt or lose their land, estates, and homes to taxes found other means to support themselves, such as investing or pursuing a professional career.
Patrilineal preference is the principle that male heirs take precedence over female heirs. This can range from females and their descendents being excluded from succession completely, to females being allowed to succeed only after all eligible males have died. Though this is beginning to change, and most recently the United Kingdom passed a new crown succession law that allows older females to succeed as monarch before younger males, many titles are still inherited through male lines. The reasons for male preference include the need for the head of the family to be a warrior and military commander and/or to fulfill certain priestly duties denied to females, the double standard that allows males to maximize reproductive success by fathering illegitimate children while denying females the same opportunity, the tradition that only allows descendents from paternal ancestors that held the title to succeed, and the requirement (in the modern age) that the successor share the same Y chromosome as his predecessor.
A curious aspect of this principle, however, is that while males inherit dignity by primogeniture, females who are able to inherit dignity do so as co-parceners; that is, only the firstborn male can possess the dignity, but all females equally share the dignity regardless of age. Yet since a dignity cannot be possessed by more than one person, it is held in abeyance until a single claimant presents himself. This can happen if all females but one renounce for themselves and their successors all rights to that dignity, or, as it often did, it happens when the other females or their descendents die without issue. The alternative is that each female line can grow and expand over time until there are so many claimants that no one male can establish a clear right to the dignity. Even then, a claimant can petition the Crown to terminate the abeyance if he can show that he holds at least one-third of the dignity and there is no evidence of collusion.
It is not uncommon for a title to remain abeyant for decades, and a few remained so for centuries. A significant number are still in abeyance, and since 1927 any that have been abeyant for over 100 years are considered to be dormant and will not be terminated. Dormant titles are those that are unclaimed, because they are abandoned or there is no one left to claim them. However, abeyant titles can also be considered dormant if there is no single heir with at least a third of the dignity, which is likely to be the case after a century. And if they remain dormant long enough, the Crown can declare them extinct, meaning they don't exist anymore. (Though it can recreate them at a later time.)
The three methods of inheritance are, in order of prevalence, heirs-male, heirs-general, and heirs-of-the-body. All three are primogeniture methods, in that the firstborn inherits the dignity to the exclusion of younger siblings. If he has children before he dies, his firstborn will inherit on his death, and so forth. Only if the firstborn dies without issue can a younger sibling inherit, and if there are no siblings the right to succeed passes to nephews and cousins in order of seniority, with descendents of a dead inheritor taking precedence over living relatives. This can make for a rather convoluted descent. It wasn't uncommon for aristocrats to produce no children, or produce only daughters, or for sons to die before their fathers, and so forth. Hence, the title could skip a whole generation, passing from father to grandson, or pass to a nephew, starting a whole new collateral line. A good example of this is in the Howard family tree (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukes_of…). As the Dukes of Norfolk (the real life inspiration for the Duchy of Anglin), their descent took several twists and turns to reach the current Duke and his family.
In heirs-male inheritance, males inherit to the exclusion of females. If the title holder has no sons, collateral kin can inherit as long as they can trace their ancestry back to a previous title holder such as a grandfather or great-grandfather, with nephews taking precedence over male cousins. Even if there are no living males, females can never inherit, but their male descendents can. This is perhaps the oldest of the three methods, and the one used for most titles. It is also the method most likely to produce an abeyance. The Duchy of Anglin is inherited in this manner.
In heirs-of-the-body inheritance, direct descendents of the title holder inherit to the exclusion of all collateral kin. In other words, only children and grandchildren may inherit the title, including daughters and granddaughters, but males are still preferred over females, so younger males will inherit before older sisters. If there are no direct descendents when the title holder dies, the title is considered to be extinct. Only a small percentage of titles are inherited in this manner, and they are the most likely to result in dormancy and extinction. The Viscountcy of Dunwich is inherited in this manner.
Heirs-general inheritance is something of a combination of the previous two. As in heirs-male, collateral kin may inherit as well as children and grandchildren, though direct descendents are still preferred over heirs descended from a titleholder's siblings or other relatives, but as in heirs-of-the-body, females may inherit as well as males, though males are still preferred over females. This is the second most common method of inheritance, and tends to be used by the oldest baronies and earldoms, though some more recent dignities are inherited this way as well. It is the method least likely to result in abeyance, dormancy, or extinction, due to the potentially large pool of heirs, but it is most likely to result in family feuds, as rivals with equal claims fight for possession of the dignity. The Baronetcy of Denver is inherited in this fashion.
As a final note, it should be said that the aristocracy has declined quite a bit since the turn of the 20th century. It has lost virtually all of its ancient privileges, and whatever prestige it still possesses is based on tradition and respect. Even its political power has shifted to holders of Life Peerages, and while the equivalent of baronies, they cannot be inherited and so are not true aristocratic titles. While the old methods of inheritance are still observed, it doesn't matter anymore who inherits, because titles have become no more useful or important than a gold watch handed down through the generations, and what property the titles retain can be more a source of trouble than wealth, due to inheritance and other taxes. It is very rare to see an aristocrat in any position of real power anymore, such as the Duke of Anglin who serves as Earl Marshall, Chief Butler of England, and Lord-Lieutenant of Yorkshire, and the Earl of Strattmoore, who serves as Lord President of the Privy Council, and almost as rare to see one able to live a carefree life with no money worries, such as Lady Margaret Chesham. Most now have to work for a living in some capacity, either as a professional, an officer of a government or corporate department, a charity, or a foundation, or in a creative endeavor, such as Sir Differel as Director of the Caerleon Order, or Victor Plunkett, an envoy for the Foreign Office. In fact, except for members of the Royal Family, no new hereditary dignities have been created since 1965. This wasn't due to a new law, it simply fell out of favor in the political climate of that day, so changing political conditions could allow the Crown to create dignities again at its discretion.
In Great Britain, there are three primary ways that property such as estates, homes, titles, and arms can be inherited by the aristocracy. However, they are all based on two general principles. The first is the indivisibility of property, while the second is patrilineal preference.
Indivisibility of property is the idea that all property is inherited by a single heir rather than divided between multiple heirs. It is easy to understand that titles can only be claimed by one person at a time, but most people would assume that homes, estates, and arms are owned by all family members in common, and that other property will be divided between the available heirs, if not always equally. However, the basis for this principle is the old European feudal system wherein land was the basis for power. Among the ancient Celtic Britons, property, such as land and cattle, was divided between all heirs, female as well as male, because everyone, including the warrior elite, needed it to survive. The Anglo-Saxons did much the same, though their traditions were somewhat more complicated; for example, a single person might inherit, but he or she would be that person the family decided could best manage the estate, and not necessarily the oldest or male.
But this idea was anathema to the Normans. To them land represented military and political power because of the fortifications and titles that came with it. To them it made no sense to divide up land between several heirs, because that not only resulted in less production per person, but also a division of political power among several potential rivals, with the one holding the castle being in the strongest position. Such could lead to internecine conflict that would weaken the family even if one heir emerged victorious. In other words, in the same way several heirs cannot share a title, neither should they be allowed to share the power attached to the land, so Norman law prescribed that the land, and thus the power, should pass to a single heir, particularly the oldest living male. This led to the tradition that the other heirs would join the clergy and the military to make their own way in the world, which sometimes resulted in a priest or soldier inheriting the family property when the firstborn heir died. (Male heirs, that is; females were married off to better the fortunes of the family.) Even if they did not, however, having family in positions of ecclesiastical and military power was considered beneficial.
Originally, titles, arms, and estates came with the grant of land, but by the time of the Norman conquest of England, that had become reversed; people were invested with titles which included grants of land with estates. That reinforced the principle of indivisibility, because whereas before a land holder could break off small parcels of land and grant them to minor members of a family without affecting the prestige of his position, a title holder who did the same would damage the prestige of his title, and thereby his own political and social standing. As a result, the title itself and the property attached to it became known as a "dignity". In later centuries this principle became codified into laws that went so far as to deny aristocrats the right to sell any part of the collective property associated with their dignity. This inadvertently led to the phenomenon of a land-rich but money-poor aristocracy in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, as they lost their tenant farmers to colonization and industrialization. Those who did not go bankrupt or lose their land, estates, and homes to taxes found other means to support themselves, such as investing or pursuing a professional career.
Patrilineal preference is the principle that male heirs take precedence over female heirs. This can range from females and their descendents being excluded from succession completely, to females being allowed to succeed only after all eligible males have died. Though this is beginning to change, and most recently the United Kingdom passed a new crown succession law that allows older females to succeed as monarch before younger males, many titles are still inherited through male lines. The reasons for male preference include the need for the head of the family to be a warrior and military commander and/or to fulfill certain priestly duties denied to females, the double standard that allows males to maximize reproductive success by fathering illegitimate children while denying females the same opportunity, the tradition that only allows descendents from paternal ancestors that held the title to succeed, and the requirement (in the modern age) that the successor share the same Y chromosome as his predecessor.
A curious aspect of this principle, however, is that while males inherit dignity by primogeniture, females who are able to inherit dignity do so as co-parceners; that is, only the firstborn male can possess the dignity, but all females equally share the dignity regardless of age. Yet since a dignity cannot be possessed by more than one person, it is held in abeyance until a single claimant presents himself. This can happen if all females but one renounce for themselves and their successors all rights to that dignity, or, as it often did, it happens when the other females or their descendents die without issue. The alternative is that each female line can grow and expand over time until there are so many claimants that no one male can establish a clear right to the dignity. Even then, a claimant can petition the Crown to terminate the abeyance if he can show that he holds at least one-third of the dignity and there is no evidence of collusion.
It is not uncommon for a title to remain abeyant for decades, and a few remained so for centuries. A significant number are still in abeyance, and since 1927 any that have been abeyant for over 100 years are considered to be dormant and will not be terminated. Dormant titles are those that are unclaimed, because they are abandoned or there is no one left to claim them. However, abeyant titles can also be considered dormant if there is no single heir with at least a third of the dignity, which is likely to be the case after a century. And if they remain dormant long enough, the Crown can declare them extinct, meaning they don't exist anymore. (Though it can recreate them at a later time.)
The three methods of inheritance are, in order of prevalence, heirs-male, heirs-general, and heirs-of-the-body. All three are primogeniture methods, in that the firstborn inherits the dignity to the exclusion of younger siblings. If he has children before he dies, his firstborn will inherit on his death, and so forth. Only if the firstborn dies without issue can a younger sibling inherit, and if there are no siblings the right to succeed passes to nephews and cousins in order of seniority, with descendents of a dead inheritor taking precedence over living relatives. This can make for a rather convoluted descent. It wasn't uncommon for aristocrats to produce no children, or produce only daughters, or for sons to die before their fathers, and so forth. Hence, the title could skip a whole generation, passing from father to grandson, or pass to a nephew, starting a whole new collateral line. A good example of this is in the Howard family tree (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukes_of…). As the Dukes of Norfolk (the real life inspiration for the Duchy of Anglin), their descent took several twists and turns to reach the current Duke and his family.
In heirs-male inheritance, males inherit to the exclusion of females. If the title holder has no sons, collateral kin can inherit as long as they can trace their ancestry back to a previous title holder such as a grandfather or great-grandfather, with nephews taking precedence over male cousins. Even if there are no living males, females can never inherit, but their male descendents can. This is perhaps the oldest of the three methods, and the one used for most titles. It is also the method most likely to produce an abeyance. The Duchy of Anglin is inherited in this manner.
In heirs-of-the-body inheritance, direct descendents of the title holder inherit to the exclusion of all collateral kin. In other words, only children and grandchildren may inherit the title, including daughters and granddaughters, but males are still preferred over females, so younger males will inherit before older sisters. If there are no direct descendents when the title holder dies, the title is considered to be extinct. Only a small percentage of titles are inherited in this manner, and they are the most likely to result in dormancy and extinction. The Viscountcy of Dunwich is inherited in this manner.
Heirs-general inheritance is something of a combination of the previous two. As in heirs-male, collateral kin may inherit as well as children and grandchildren, though direct descendents are still preferred over heirs descended from a titleholder's siblings or other relatives, but as in heirs-of-the-body, females may inherit as well as males, though males are still preferred over females. This is the second most common method of inheritance, and tends to be used by the oldest baronies and earldoms, though some more recent dignities are inherited this way as well. It is the method least likely to result in abeyance, dormancy, or extinction, due to the potentially large pool of heirs, but it is most likely to result in family feuds, as rivals with equal claims fight for possession of the dignity. The Baronetcy of Denver is inherited in this fashion.
As a final note, it should be said that the aristocracy has declined quite a bit since the turn of the 20th century. It has lost virtually all of its ancient privileges, and whatever prestige it still possesses is based on tradition and respect. Even its political power has shifted to holders of Life Peerages, and while the equivalent of baronies, they cannot be inherited and so are not true aristocratic titles. While the old methods of inheritance are still observed, it doesn't matter anymore who inherits, because titles have become no more useful or important than a gold watch handed down through the generations, and what property the titles retain can be more a source of trouble than wealth, due to inheritance and other taxes. It is very rare to see an aristocrat in any position of real power anymore, such as the Duke of Anglin who serves as Earl Marshall, Chief Butler of England, and Lord-Lieutenant of Yorkshire, and the Earl of Strattmoore, who serves as Lord President of the Privy Council, and almost as rare to see one able to live a carefree life with no money worries, such as Lady Margaret Chesham. Most now have to work for a living in some capacity, either as a professional, an officer of a government or corporate department, a charity, or a foundation, or in a creative endeavor, such as Sir Differel as Director of the Caerleon Order, or Victor Plunkett, an envoy for the Foreign Office. In fact, except for members of the Royal Family, no new hereditary dignities have been created since 1965. This wasn't due to a new law, it simply fell out of favor in the political climate of that day, so changing political conditions could allow the Crown to create dignities again at its discretion.
An essay explaining how British aristocratic titles are inherited.
Copyright (C) 2012 by Kevin L. O'Brien
Copyright (C) 2012 by Kevin L. O'Brien
Comments0
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In