British Peerage Status

Factual Questions
1

I’ve been looking over the list of Peerages for the British Isles. Wikipedia has charts of the peerages and their current statuses. While I understood what most of the statuses were, there were some that I did not understand.

Extant - This means that the title still exists and is currently held by someone.

Extinct - This means that the title has no living claimants. The Duke of Windsor, who died without issue, is a recent example. This title is available for regrant.

Merged in/with crown - The holder of the title became the sovereign. The title is available for regrant.

Suspended - The title holder is deprived of his title, but his heirs have the right to petition for reinstatement (Duke of Cumberland). Is this title available for regrant as is - or does it need to be forfeited first?

Those four were fairly obvious. Others were less so. For example:

The Duke of Surry’s title was forfeit in 1399. The Duke of Exeter, however, was deprived of title only two years earlier in 1397. What’s the difference?

The Earl of Bedford (1366 creation) resigned his titles. The Earl of Arran (1581 creation) on the other hand returned his titles. The Earl of Ross (1215 creation) , OTOH, surrendered. What’s the difference?

The Viscount Stafford (1640 creation) was attained. What’s that? Was he arrested and therefore lost his titles?

I know that a title for which there are multiple claimants of equal value is abeyant (the Earl of Arlington is an example). But what is a dormant title (Earl of Arran 1503)?

Thanks in advance,

Zev Steinhardt

2

A title that’s forfeit means that the holder of the title had to give it up. So, in the case of the Duke of Surry, as your example, Thomas Holland was made duke by Richard III. Then when Richard III was overthrown, Henry VII arrested Holland and made him forfeit the title.

In the case of the Earl of Bedford, he resigned his title. He was a nobleman with titles in both England and France, and when the Hundred Years War heated up, realized that he couldn’t be loyal to both sides, and so he resigned his English titles.

In the case of the Earl of Ross, he went into rebellion against the king, and when he lost, surrendered the titles to keep his freedom.

If someone is attained, that means a law has been passed in parliament called “a bill of attainder”, to punish a specific person, in this case, to take away his title.

3

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
I’ve been looking over the list of Peerages for the British Isles. Wikipedia has charts of the peerages and their current statuses. While I understood what most of the statuses were, there were some that I did not understand.

Extant - This means that the title still exists and is currently held by someone.

Extinct - This means that the title has no living claimants. The Duke of Windsor, who died without issue, is a recent example. This title is available for regrant.

Merged in/with crown - The holder of the title became the sovereign. The title is available for regrant.

Suspended - The title holder is deprived of his title, but his heirs have the right to petition for reinstatement (Duke of Cumberland). Is this title available for regrant as is - or does it need to be forfeited first?

Those four were fairly obvious. Others were less so. For example:

The Duke of Surry’s title was forfeit in 1399. The Duke of Exeter, however, was deprived of title only two years earlier in 1397. What’s the difference?

The Earl of Bedford (1366 creation) resigned his titles. The Earl of Arran (1581 creation) on the other hand returned his titles. The Earl of Ross (1215 creation) , OTOH, surrendered. What’s the difference?

The Viscount Stafford (1640 creation) was attained. What’s that? Was he arrested and therefore lost his titles?

I know that a title for which there are multiple claimants of equal value is abeyant (the Earl of Arlington is an example). But what is a dormant title (Earl of Arran 1503)?

Thanks in advance,

Zev Steinhardt
[/QUOTE]

Can’t be sure about most, but I believe I can help with “attained.” This means that the person was the subject of a Bill of Attainder, which means that he was determined to have committed a crime sufficient to justify taking away his title and lands, without the formality of a trial.

And you can read about the Viscount Stafford and see that this is indeed the case. :slight_smile:

If this abuses your notions of fair play and justice, you aren’t alone. The US Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder.

4

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
But what is a dormant title (Earl of Arran 1503)?
[/QUOTE]

Well, that’d be why you don’t want to ennoble lungfish. They gave it to him in 1503, he crawled under a rock and they haven’t been able to pass it on to anybody since then.

5

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
I know that a title for which there are multiple claimants of equal value is abeyant (the Earl of Arlington is an example). But what is a dormant title (Earl of Arran 1503)?
[/QUOTE]
A dormant title is one where there is uncertainty about whether any heirs to the title exist. For example, perhaps a distant cousin of the last titleholder can’t be traced. While there’s still some possibility of an heir appearing on the scene, the title remains dormant rather than being declared extinct.

6

[QUOTE=Cunctator]
A dormant title is one where there is uncertainty about whether any heirs to the title exist. For example, perhaps a distant cousin of the last titleholder can’t be traced. While there’s still some possibility of an heir appearing on the scene, the title remains dormant rather than being declared extinct.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, I get it. So, if a noble were to go out sailing for parts unknown with his wife and never return, his Earldom would become dormant, since it is unknown if any claimants exist somewhere (think: Lord Greystoke). Correct?

Zev Steinhardt

7

In abeyance (this is the first time I’ve ever seen the adjective “abeyant” though it may actually be used) means:

The creation of the title did not limit it to heirs male and did not specify that it was to pass to the eldest female heir in the absence of male heirs. At some point the last holder of the title died with no surviving sons (or their heirs) but two or more daughters, or no surviving children or brothers (or their heirs) but two or more sisters.

The title is neither extant nor extinct, or otherwise ceasing to exist. But the daughters have equally good claim to, or to transmit, the title. So it is held in abeyance until one of them dies without children or abnegates her claim in favor of the other. If your great-grandfather was the last Earl of Hallamshire, leaving your grandmother and her sister who never married, when your great-aunt dies you can petition the crown to resolve the abeyance and recognize you as heir to the Earldom – which it will do as a matter of course unless there’s some bizarre reason not to.

8

OK, thanks everyone. However, there are still some unanswered questions.

What is the difference between forfeit and deprived of title? They were both used fairly close to each other (within two years).

What, exactly, is returned? Is it like resigned? If so, what’s the difference?

Can a suspended title be regranted? What about a dormant title? (I suppose the sovereign could declare them forfeit first – but I’m curious as to whether they can be regranted without that measure).

Zev Steinhardt

9

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
Ah, I get it. So, if a noble were to go out sailing for parts unknown with his wife and never return, his Earldom would become dormant, since it is unknown if any claimants exist somewhere (think: Lord Greystoke). Correct?

Zev Steinhardt
[/QUOTE]

Nitpick: The Greystoke title wasn’t dormant. There was a male cousin who inherited (and was also engaged to Jane Porter) only having to give it up when fingerprints proved that Tarzan was the legitimate heir. Spoiler alert: Tarzan got the girl, too.

10

Wouldn’t the older of the two have the stronger claim?