After the Jacobite rebellion the Earl of Derwentwater was executed in 1716 and his lands and titles attained by the Crown. According to her family legend, my ex-wife was related to the 2nd Earl via a secret marriage and a love child. Not enough evidence exists though, otherwise I’d be typing this in a castle.
This is the sort of thing I vaguely recall. A number of such lords were stripped of their titles (which afterwards they did not need, being dead). But by the time of George IV all was forgiven with Scotland, the titles were restored, and the whole “Scottish Tartan and Kilt” thing was fashionable with the British peerage.
This wasn’t something that happened only after the '45. In early modern England/Britain, if a person of high rank fell into disfavour, as an alternative to trying them in a court, which might involve tiresome things like evidence and the right to a defence, Parliament could enact a bill of attainder declaring them to be guilty of high treason (or whatever), seizing their property, extinguishing their titles, and providing for a punishment, frequently execution. Sometimes a bill of attainder was passed even after a person had died, in order to deprive their heirs of property or titles inherited from the attainted person. Sometimes the confiscated land, or some of it, was sold back to other members of the family. Sometimes extinguished titles were restored to the family after a time.
The practice was recognised as abusive by the American revolutionaries and is prohibited by Art. 1 s. 9 of the US Constitution.
The last act of attainder was passed in 1798 (by the Irish Parliament) to attaint three participants in the 1798 rebellion (who were already dead). That didn’t involve the deprivation of titles, since none of the attainted persons had titles to begin with.
I believe under English pronunciation rules, it’s pronounced “Bob Smith”.
Hi @zev_steinhardt , nice to see you back!
Finally found time to check Halsburys.
[my underlining]
That’s a lot of obscure old English common law verbiage, but what it boils down to is that a peerage descends according to the original grant and cannot be alienated. It is treated by the law as if it were an entailed estate of land, i.e. real property.
The monarch has no legal authority to take away property from anyone. Doesn’t matter if it’s land or an incorporeal hereditament. Once someone acquires a property right, the monarch can’t take it away, has no power of expropriation.
Which leads to this:
[my underlining]
Because a peerage is a type of property, only an Act of Parliament can alter its terms and its descent. So Archie will inherit according to the terms of the original grant to Harry.
Source: Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, 1970-74 and 1979-87 (general editor), Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed reissue), Volume 35 (London: Butterworths: 1994).
(Sorry for the delay; couldn’t find this volume on our office bookshelves; that was because it was on my desk under some papers. 
)
[Not meant as legal advice, but only to comment on a matter of public interest. If King Charles is trying to take away a peerage from you or someone you love, please consult counsel at one of the Inns of Court.]
Fascinating discussion - thanks!
Quite right, and wisely so IMHO.
And let’s not forget the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917. I’m curious why none of the heirs have claimed the titles Duke of Cumberland or Duke of Albany yet.
Just realised I forgot to include a wikilink to Halsburys:
Didn’t see any point? Or possibly preferred to remain citizens of the former enemy state, and they had laws against accepting foreign titles of nobility when their own were abolished?
Just a guess.
Under German law, German citizens (which includes most of those affected by the TDA) can accept foreign titles with the prior permission of the German president. Since the UK is, from the perspective of Germany, a friendly nation, I doubt such permission would have been refused if the petitioners under the TDA had asked for it. German society is not fervently anti-aristocracy.
And I know at least one person denied UK citizenship due to the Title Deprivation Act petitioned to have it restored and it was granted. I’d have to look it up to remind myself of the details.
There might not be anyone to claim Albany. The last duke’s sons seem not to have sought the needed permission for their marriages, so their offspring were illegitimate under British law, in which case the dukedom has been extinct since 1998 when the youngest son died. That might have been retroactively undone in 2015, but it would be fact-dependent. In any case, for it to be decided at all, the government would have to care enough to summon a committee just to hear the matter of some random German who wants a peerage.
You must be misremembering things here. The TDA 1917 revoked peerages and titles as Prince of the UK, not citizenship; and no title revoked under the Act has ever been restored.
Yep you’re right. It was the Princess Sophia’s Naturalization Act of 1705
As Dukes, I didn’t think they needed the monarch’s permission.
They were descendants of King George II, bringing them within the permission requirement of the Royal Marriages Act.
There’d be no advantage in trying to get the title back anyway. There’s no estate or money involved (except for the petitioner’s own legal expenses), no seat in the Lords, just some sort of bragging rights, for all that would be worth.
To hear Jamie Lee Curtis tell it, a noble title can get you into some of the better restaurants.
Funny that you should say that; just last night I happened to watch This is Spinal Tap, which has Curtis’ husband, Christopher Guest, Baron Haden-Guest, in a lead role. It is through him that she is entitled, as per the rule of British etiquette, to the courtesy title of Lady Haden-Guest - though I understand that she refuses to use it.
Except, she said in an interview I read awhile back, when it gets them a good dinner out.