Questions re: "Establishing his right to the Peerage"

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I have seen this term used on several occasions. For instance, in
Debrett's, it states that the current Earl of Cavan "has not yet
established his right to the Peerage.

Questions:

1) What does this mean exactly? Does the person claiming the peerage
need to produce a family tree? What is involved?

2) Exactly who needs to "establish his right the Peerage?"
For instance, would a son have to establish his right? A nephew? Or
would it be someone more distant?

Any clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Brooke

[marquess]

This is also case for Lord Blackwood, the Earl of Lincoln, Viscount
Doneraille, the Earl Winterton too, see the case the of the previous
earl of Essex. My understanding is that one has to prove that there
isn't anyone else who has a better claim than oneself. Though in some
cases like Blackwood the descent is quite clear, I read in Desmond
Guinness' Great Irish Houses and Castle, that the Donerailles have no
claim to the viscountcy and that it should be extinct; I don't know
how true this is. Also these days with most peers not sitting in the
house due to Mr B'lair's 'reforms' I am not sure if any of the
procedure is still really worth all the expense. There are very few
entailed estates these days that go with peerages.

[Hovite]

On Apr 8, 8:18 pm, "b...@yahoo.com" <b...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 1) What does this mean exactly?  Does the person claiming the peerage
> need to produce a family tree?

Quite possibly.

> 2) Exactly who needs to "establish his right the Peerage?"
> For instance, would a son have to establish his right?

A son may have to. It depends on the circumstances. There might be son
doubt about paternity or legitimacy. Here is a recent decision:

"That the Committee have met and have considered the Petition of the
Honourable Colin Berkeley Moynihan to Her Majesty, praying that Her
Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that a Writ of Summons be
issued to him as Baron Moynihan, together with Her Majesty's Reference
to this House and the report of the Attorney General thereon:

That the Committee have also considered the application of Daniel
Patrick Berkeley Moynihan (by his mother and next friend Jinna
Sabiaga) praying for leave to be heard in opposition to the said
Petition and, leave having been given, the Committee have heard
Counsel on behalf of the said Daniel Patrick Berkeley Moynihan; and

That the Committee have also heard the Attorney General on behalf of
the Crown and have heard the Petitioner in person, and have come to
the following Resolution:

That Daniel Patrick Berkeley Moynihan has not succeeded in his
opposition to the Petition and that the Petitioner, the Honourable
Colin Berkeley Moynihan, claiming to have succeeded to the Barony of
Moynihan has made out his claim to the said Barony."

Some background here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/queens-proctor-v-moynihan-sons-fugitive-barons-dissolute-lifestyle-to-be-kept-secret-1328929.html

[marquess]

The Moynihan example is a good one in terms of a peerage claim but one
feels that it is doesn't quite do as it was not a peerage lost in
antiquity where there might have been rivals with a greater claim who
lay un-discovered. Those other cases that I listed are not all as
straightforward as the Moynihan case.

> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/queens-proctor-v-moynihan-sons-fugi...

[ccz...@googlemail.com]

Some people will spend a small fortune in researching their genealogy
even when no title in the peerage is involved; how much more
interesting when there is.

> > Brooke- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Richard R]

EVERY heir of a peer has to establish his/her claim to a peerage
before being entered on the Roll of the Peerage, which has replaced
the Roll of the House of Lords as the official record of the peerage.
Here's a very good summary from Debrett's website under their
'Essential guide to the peerage' section (which contains other
interesting information, as you'll see):

When a hereditary peer dies, and his heir wishes to prove his claim to
the title, he or she must provide suitable documentary evidence to the
Crown Office of the House of Lords to prove that he or she is indeed
the heir to the title.

When the House of Lords Act of 1999 removed the automatic right of
hereditary peers of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United
Kingdom to receive a summons to take their seats in the House of
Lords, it also led to the discontinuation of the Roll of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal. This meant that there was no official register
in which those inheriting hereditary peerages could seek inclusion as
evidence of their status and rank.

This situation was resolved by a Royal Warrant dated 1 June 2004 which
instituted a Roll of the Peerage, to be prepared and kept by the Lord
Chancellor, acting in consultation with Garter Principal King of Arms
(for English peerages) and Lord Lyon King of Arms (for Scottish
peerages). The Roll of the Peerage also records peers of Ireland and
life peers.

Any person claiming a peerage may apply to the Lord Chancellor to be
entered on the Roll; the application and supporting evidence is
presented under the direction of the Lord Chancellor. The Registrar of
the Roll of the Peerage is Ian Denyer, who is also Head of the Crown
Office at the House of Lords.

Claims to abeyant peerages, or to peerages whose succession is in
dispute, are made by Petition to The Crown, presented through the Lord
Chancellor. He refers the accompanying documents to the Attorney
General in order that he may report upon them to the Sovereign.

The Attorney General seeks the advice of Counsel for The Crown in
peerage matters and then hears the petitioner and his counsel. Claims
to peerages in abeyance will not be proceeded with if the commencement
of the abeyance occurred more than a hundred years before the
presentation of the petition, or if the petitioner is not a child of
the last holder of the peerage or a descendant of a parent of the last
holder.

If the Attorney-General is satisfied (a) that no improper arrangement
has been entered into between the co-heirs, and (b) that no question
of law or pedigree is at issue, he may recommend the exercise of the
royal discretion without reference to the House of Lords.

Otherwise he is obliged to recommend a reference to the House of
Lords, which in turn refers the matter to the Committee for
Privileges. In the case of Scottish peerages or other peerages with a
strong Scottish connection, such claims are referred through the
Scottish authorities to Lord Lyon King of Arms.

http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/claims-to-peerages.aspx

> >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/queens-proctor-v-moynihan-sons-fugi...- Hide quoted text -

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Richard, thanks for such a detailed and informative answer.

Brooke

> http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/claims-...

> > >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/queens-proctor-v-moynihan-sons-fugi...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Hovite]

On Apr 9, 8:39 am, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> The Moynihan example is a good one in terms of a peerage claim but one
> feels that it is doesn't quite do as it was not a peerage lost in
> antiquity where there might have been rivals with a greater claim who
> lay un-discovered.

Sometimes the succession does not pass directly from father to son.
Here are a couple of extracts from The Scots Peerage:

"XIII. Charles, twelfth Earl of Lauderdale (see ante, p.
312). He was born 29 September 1822. On 8 November 1864
he was served as great-grandson and heir-male of Charles
Barclay Maitland, third (in the service designed second)
son of Charles, sixth Earl of Lauderdale. On 14 October
1874 he was served heir-male of James, ninth, and Anthony,
tenth, Earls of Lauderdale. While shooting near Thirle-
stane, on 12 August 1884, he was killed by lightning. On
his death, unmarried, the honours were claimed by Major
Frederick Henry Maitland, descended of Richard, the sixth
son of the sixth Earl (see ante, p. 312), and by Sir James
Ramsay Gibson Maitland, representative of Alexander,
seventh son of Charles, sixth Earl of Lauderdale (see ante,
p. 315). After an elaborate inquiry, the Committee of
Privileges resolved that ' Frederick Henry Maitland hath
made out his claim to the titles, honours, and dignities
of Earl of Lauderdale, Viscount of Lauderdale, Viscount
Maitland, Lord Thirlestane, and Lord Thirlestane and
Boltoun, in the Peerage of Scotland.' The family honours,
including tlie baronetcy of 1680, and the entailed estates
accordingly devolved on XIV. Frederick Henry, ..."

"X. Methven, youngest son of David Erskine above men-
tioned, succeeded his brother as tenth Earl of Kellie. He
was born about 1750 ; after a successful mercantile career
in Bengal, he returned home, and purchased the estate of
Airdrie, in Fifeshire. He was much of an invalid, and
lived in retirement during his latter years. He died
shortly after his brother, the ninth Earl, 3 December 1829.
He married, 10 July 1781, at Edinburgh, Joanna, daughter
of Adam Gordon of Ardoch, and sister of his brother's wife,
but by her he had no issue.

On the death of the tenth Earl the succession opened to
the collateral heir-male, and it was claimed by petition by
John Francis, Earl of Mar. The Committee for Privileges
decided in his favour 2 September 1835. He was a very
distant cousin, having to go back to the father of Sir
Alexander Erskine of Gogar before he could find a common
ancestor."

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924092516222/cu31924092516222_djvu.txt

Neither of those were actually lost, but the Earldom of Dundee was
dormant for nearly three centuries before it was successfully claimed
in 1953.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1953/may/20/earldom-of-dundee

[marquess]

All you have said is true, but Scots Peerages are a law onto
themselves with remainders such in tail mail etc which can make
succession difficult with it falls amongst collaterals though the
first case that you have given follows the normal laws of
primogeniture. What I would be interested in and which no one has
commented on is the Doneraille case, does the current family have a
proper claim to the Viscountcy? Are Desmond Guinness's comments in
Great Irish House and Castles valid?

[dpth...@gmail.com]

As a historical note on this issue:

Shortly after Horace Walpole succeeded his nephew as 4th Earl of Orford in 1791, he was contacted by Sir Isaac Heard, Garter King-of-Arms, who had prepared a pedigree to show Walpole's right to the title. Walpole, who was in his 70s by then, never bothered to take his seat before he died.

A footnote in the Yale Edition of the Walpole Correspondence notes:

"On 11 May 1767 the House of Lords adopted Standing Orders requiring the registration, in the College of Arms, of a pedigree certifying the descent of a peer as a preliminary to a peer's taking his seat on succession.... The second resolution stated, 'That Garter King at Arms do officially attend this House upon the day, and at the time, of the first admission of every peer, whether by creation or descent; and that he do then and there deliver in, at the table, a pedigree of the family of such peer, fairly described on vellum.' "

[S. S.]

I somewhat remember this practice of having pedigrees recorded be dispensed with. Now I for the life of me cannot remember where I read this. 

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

As said above, Horace Walpole never took his seat in the Lords. He wrote to Lady Ossory, 7 December 1792:

"Your Ladyship has made me smile beyond my Lord Chesterfield's allowed simper, by sending me to take my seat in the House of Lords out of tenderness for my character --- if serious, I should not doubt your sincerity -- but as you can look grave and soften your voice, when you have a mind to banter your friends, I rather think you was willing to try whether I have the lurking vanity of supposing myself of any importance -- indeed I have not -- on the contrary, I know that having determined never to take that unwelcome seat, I should only make myself ridiculous, by fancying it could signify a straw whether I take it or not."