Peers who have proven succession to a lesser title only

[Sam Marroy]

I've tried for a couple of days to recall the specific case that inspired this question so I could ask it in a less vague way, but I wasn't able to, so here goes: 

What circumstances could lead to a peer proving succession to a subsidiary title, but not their primary title? I'm almost certain the example that I'm thinking of involved a peer inheriting all of his titles from his father, all with the same remainder, but per the Roll of the Peerage and their Wiki page, they had only so far proven their claim to one of the lesser titles. If I'm imagining this, or if the case I might be thinking of involved a title with a special remainder, I'd be happy to stand corrected, but it's been bugging me for a couple weeks now and I haven't been able to find an answer 

[Paul Theroff]

You may be thinking of the Annesleys. Arthur, son of Richard Annesley, 5th Lord Altham, 6th Earl of Anglesey and 7th Viscount Valentia, proved his succession to the Barony and Viscountcy, but not the the earldom. The issue was his parents' marriage; the Irish House of Lords found that the marriage was valid, though the English House of Commons found that it was not; Richard’s son Arthur thus inherited the Irish peerages only, and the earldom of Anglesey was deemed to be extinct on Richard’s death.

You can read details in an earlier thread:

https://groups.google.com/g/peerage-news/c/kd8VWR669yk/m/65QoHj7vAgAJ

and on my page at:

https://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/annesley.html

[Sam Marroy]

This is a good example and interesting answer, one that I wasn't aware of, but the one I'm thinking of came to my attention a couple of weeks ago during the conversation about what steps the Crown could take to deprive Andrew of the Dukedom of York, more specifically about peers who aren't on the Roll of the Peerage despite being the legal holder of a title (Earl of Dalhousie was one example someone cited). I re-read that thread, and tried to retrace my steps from that point, but I couldn't figure it out - the example I'm thinking of involves a current peer who is listed on the Roll of the Peerage under a subsidiary title, having not proved succession to the more substantial title. I know that isn't much to go on but if I could come up with more detail I'd probably have already found it myself

[David Beamish]

This is probably not what Sam has in mind but, after the Peerage Act 1963 enabled all holders of peerages of Scotland to sit in the House of Lords, there were many examples of such peers with lesser titles in the peerage of Great Britain or the United Kingdom who continued to sit by virtue of those titles rather than establish their claim to the higher Scottish title. The same applies to many peers who succeeded after 1963. For example, the 14th Earl of Stair, who succeded to the title in 1996, took his seat in the House of Lords as Lord Oxenfoord (UK peerage created 1841).  He was elected in a House of Lords by-election in 2008 and is still cited as Lord Oxenfoord when taking the oath (most recently on 17 July 2024).

[992234177]

Could it be the barony of Arlington.

[marquess]

Yes, Arlington is a good choice for this unusual category. The abeyance of the earldom of the same name is still yet to have its abeyance terminated. Thanks to the original poster for coming up with this thread

[colinp]

Possibly Wilton E/Ebury B.  Lord Wilton succeeded to the barony of Ebury in 1957 and to the earldom of Wilton in 1999.  He appeared on the Peerage Roll as Baron Ebury until and including the edition dated 29 May 2023.  It was only with the Roll dated 30 November 2023 that he was entered as Earl of Wilton (as well as Baron Ebury)

[marquess]

Annandale, the earldom was successfully claimed but the marquisate was not. 

[Windemere]

Sam, are you perhaps thinking of Viscount Mountgarret, who hasn't proven succession to Earl of Ormond title. I think that was briefly discussed on this forum recently.

[S. S.]

Technically, isn't the present Viscount Mountgarret de jure Earl of Ormond? Proving succession at this stage is a moot point, what with the House of Lords bill and no real difference in proving succession. 

S.S.

[S. S.]

Annandale's case is very long and pretty interesting. This has already been discussed on a prevoius thread. You can find my edition of the Complete Peerage entry in that thread too. 

https://groups.google.com/g/peerage-news/c/zP-7wnJIvpw/m/TurhySAKDAAJ

S.S.

[Sam Marroy]

This isn't quite the situation I'm referring to - the marquessate and earldom had different remainders, so the marquessate is well and truly extinct while the current Earl of Annandale & Hartfell was able to produce a document showing that the earldom had been regranted to enable it to descend through the female line. It was a Duke of Newcastle upon Tyne / Duke of Newcastle under Lyne situation, where the title was created once with normal remainder, and then again with a special remainder when it became clear there would be no male issue

[Sam Marroy]

The Ormond situation is that he's the likely heir, but because the line of descent is so remote, he hasn't been able to prove that there is no senior claim, correct? This is different from the situation I'm thinking of, which involves a peer who inherited both of his titles from the same person, but thus far is only recognized on the Roll of the Peerage under the lesser title, despite seeming to be the obvious heir to the senior title as well

[Paul Theroff]

It seems that the Annesley case exactly fits your criteria.
 
I've never done this before, but I decided to submit your question to the AI system at Grok. It was interesting to watch it work. It reported that it was considering the Mowbray/Stourton claim to the earldom of Norfolk, the clashing claims to the Earldom of Devon by Viscount Powderham and his cousin, and a few others. It did not find the Annesley case I cited, however.

Grok's final answer was that the closest it could come was the Mar Earldom case. I know it does not fit your criteria, but some may be interested in Grok's response. I include it only to show what Grok came up with in about three minutesm and not because I think it answers your question.

"Yes, there are historical examples in British peerage law where claimants successfully proved their right to one title but failed to prove their right to another considered higher or senior in the dispute.
One notable case is the Mar Peerage Case (1875). Following the death of the 9th Earl of Mar in 1866, John Francis Goodeve-Erskine (the heir-general) and Walter Erskine, Earl of Kellie (the heir-male), both claimed the Earldom of Mar. The House of Lords Committee for Privileges ruled in 1875 that the earldom created in 1565 by Mary, Queen of Scots, was a new creation passing only to heirs-male, awarding it to the Earl of Kellie. Goodeve-Erskine failed to prove his right to this 1565 earldom. However, the Earldom of Mar Restitution Act 1885 declared the existence of two separate earldoms: the 1565 creation for Kellie (and heirs-male), and the ancient earldom (dating back to around 1404 or earlier) for Goodeve-Erskine (and heirs-general). In this context, Goodeve-Erskine proved his right to the ancient title but not the 1565 creation.
Although both titles are earldoms of the same rank, the 1565 creation was treated as the principal or "higher" one in the initial dispute (as it was the one actively used and contested), while the ancient one was restored separately via parliamentary act. Precedence in peerage is typically based on creation date, giving the ancient title higher status, but the case illustrates a partial success in proving rights to titles within the same lineage."