Female heirs apparent

[Peter FitzGerald]

When a title is inheritable through the female line, it is possible for a woman to be the heir apparent: for example, if the eldest son of the current holder of a Scottish title which can pass through the female line (like the ancient Earldom of Mar) were to die leaving only daughters, the eldest of those daughters would be the heir apparent because she could not be displaced from inheriting by any subsequent birth. (The same would apply to an English barony by writ, provided that there was only one daughter, so the title would not fall into abeyance.)

My question is: has this ever actually happened? (And a follow-up question: if it has, and if the title was an earldom or higher, did the female heir apparent use the appropriate courtesy peerage?)

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Hi Peter.  

One recent case that came to mind where this might have happened, but didn't,  is the Earldom of Sutherland.

The Earl has 2 daughters from his 1st marriage and from his 2nd marriage, he had a son and then another daughter.

The son, Lord Strathnaver, became the ha, even though he was younger than his 2 half sisters.  It was only when he died in 2022, that the eldest daughter, Lady Rachel, became the heiress presumptive, the Mistress of Strathnaver.

Brooke

[dpth...@gmail.com]

I think the question was specifically about female heirs apparent, though. There are too many cases of female heirs presumptive.

Here are some which probably fit the criteria. There are other instances in the Peerages of this happening in the case of old Peerages (especially those by writ), where the heiress is called "de jure" Baroness, but since those people likely never knew that later doctrines would regard them as holders of a Peerage, I omitted them.


Christina Stewart succeeded her grandfather as 4th Countess of Buchan in 1551/5 (year depending on sources), her father, the Master of Buchan, having dvp in 1547. I see no indication that she ever held a title such as "Lady" or "Mistress" of Buchan, as heir, but then she was quite young when she inherited.

Elizabeth Carlyle succeeded her grandfather as de jure 5th Baroness Carlyle of Torthorwald in 1575, her father, the Master of Carlyle, having dvp in 1572.

Elizabeth, later Countess of Ulster, and later wife of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, succeeded her paternal grandmother in 1360 as Lady of Clare, her father haviong dvm, but this was probably not technically a Peerage title.

Joan Dacre succeeded her grandfather as 7th Baroness Dacre in 1458, her father having dvp.

Mary Frances Elizabeth Stapleton succeeded her grandfather as 17th Baroness Le Despencer in 1832, her father having dvp 1829.

Frances Sutton/Dudley succeeded her grandfather as 10th Baroness Dudley in 1643, her father having dvp in 1621.

Elizabeth Ferrers succeeded her grandfather as 6th Baroness Ferrers of Groby in 1445, her father having dvp.

Mary Hungerford succeeded her grandfather as 4th Lord Botreaux in 1485, and her great-grandmother as de jure Baroness Botreaux, in 1477, her father having dvp.

Margaret Campbell MAY have succeeded her grandfather as 2nd Baroness Loudoun in 1622, her father having dvp, but there is some question whether her grandfather had resigned the title and received a regrant which left Margaret's husband as his heir.

Martha Lovelace succeeded her grandmother 1697 as 8th Baroness Wentworth, her father having dvm 1693.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Here are two which bear further investigation, i.e., someone would need to read the patents themselves; however, from the descriptions I can find, they both seem to be creations with a daughter being the only remainder person, thus making the daughter the heir apparent. Possibly the patents show otherwise.


William Talbot, Lord Talbot of Hensol, having no male issue, was cr 1780 Baron Dinevor of Dinevor, with a special remainder to his only child, a daughter, Cecil, 2nd Baroness Dinevor.

John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale, resigned his titles in 1667, receiving a regrant with remainder to his only child, a daughter; however, he also received the power of redemption, which he exercised in 1675, restoring the original remainders. The daughter would have been heiress apparent between 1667 and 1675 (though subject to the Duke's right to cancel it, so maybe she shouldn't be considered heiress apparent after all?)

[S. S.]

The Barony of Dinevor was created on 17 Oct 1780 for William Talbot, 1st Earl Talbot of Hensol for life with remainder to his only daughter (and only surviving child), Lady Cecil, and her heirs male (J. C. Sainty, Peerage Creations (2008), p 50).

S.S.

[malcolm davies]

dpth,

        I haven't seen the Dinevor patent,but the usual form of special remainder starts with the ordinary remainder in tail male and then follows it with the specific remainder to a daughter or daughters.

In the case of Earl Mountbatten for example the patent reads "..to him and the heirs male of his body and in default of such issue with remainder to his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria Baroness Brabourne..." etc etc.

So the female heir is always heir presumptive.

The fact that the heir presumptive can be referred to as Master/Mistress does not affect that position(incidentally the assumption of the title Mistress is dubious-see Cracroft link here:

http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/index36.htm

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Yes,, I saw several instances of that in Complete Peerage. I did not mention those, and mentioned these two only because there is not the usual "issue male, then the daughter" which appears in the descriptions of the others. It would be interesting to know the particulars of the two cases I mentioned.

[S. S.]

J. C. Sainty always notes down the exact wording used in the special remainder to a peerage. 

In the case of the special remainder “for life” etc with an added clause, there are several other examples such as the Barony of Dinevor. If anyone is interested, here are the particulars for the peerage: C 231/12, 278; LP 20 Geo III enrolled 21 (sic) Geo III, pt 1 (C 66/3782) no 18. Here is what I noted down from Sainty's work in my chronological peerage list:

Dukedom of Southampton (1670). For life with remainder to her eldest son Charles Palmer and his heirs male, failing which to her second son, George Palmer, and his heirs male. Note that despite what the LP states, both were actually children borne by Charles I and in effect the remainder is to them as illegitimate children.

Dukedom of Schomberg (1689). For life with remainder to his third son, Charles Schomberg, and his heirs male, failing which to his second son, Meinhardt Schomberg, and his heirs male respectively, failing which to his own heirs male.

Dukedom of Bedford (1694). For life with remainder to his grandson, Wriothesley Russell, and his heirs male.

Barony of Howland (1695). For life with remainder to his grandson, Wriothesley Russell, styled Marquess of Tavistock, and his heirs male, by his wife, Elizabeth Howland.

Viscountcy of St John (1716). For life with remainder to his second son, John St John, later 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, and his heirs male, failing which to the heirs of the grantee hereafter to be begotten.

Barony of Lovaine (1784). For life with remainder to his second son, Lord Algernon Percy, and his heirs male.

Barony of Sandys (1802). Arthur Moyses William Hill; (2) her third son, Lord Arthur Marcus Cecil Hill; (3) her fourth son, Lord Arthur Augustus Edwin Hill; (4) her fifth son, Lord George Augusta (sic) Hill, in default of which, (5) to her eldest son, Arthur Blundell Sandys Trumbull Hill, 3rd Marquess of Downshire [I], and their heirs male respectively.

S.S.