Quote Originally Posted by Pleater View Post
One minor addition to all the information about inheritance of titles - it is the first legitimate son, not the firstborn - in English law. The law in Wales was different at one time, and I am unsure of how Scottish law deals with legitimacy and inheritance

Primogeniture only confers a title, or any inheritable thing, where the parents were married before the birth - even if the midwife is already in attendance.

Not that there was anything much to inherit in my family, but my mother went to great lengths to hide the fact that I was conceived out of wedlock, maintaining that she was married in the previous year. I was born legitimate - but also numerate, and with an enquiring mind - I must have been a trial to her.

I believe that there is an English title which went or will go to the second son due to the parents getting married after the birth of their first child.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:
Again , off topic, but... let me address this from multiple perspectives: In the first instance, since we are talking about an incorporeal heritable property, be it a title or coat of arms, in the final analysis it comes down to what may be called the "destination clause" in the Letters Patent. It is this clause, and this clause alone, which determines the succession to either the title or, in the case of arms, the undifferenced coat of arms of the original grantee. In the instance of titles the destination usually takes the form of the phrase "heirs male" or "heirs general", whilst in heraldic Letters Patent the phrase more commonly encountered is "and to his (her) descendants".

Broadly speaking both of these destination clauses have been rooted in the common law practice of male primogeniture as the "default" interpretation when either a title, or coat of arms, transfers by inheritance. That said, special destination clauses (like those for the earldom of Mountbatten of Burma), or an outright petition to the sovereign, can result in the title going to a daughter, nephew, son-in-law, brother, or cousin, rather than devolving upon the primogeniture heir.

With a coat of arms the position is slightly different as the armiger has the right to peacefully dispose of his estate in the manner of his choosing, and that includes his coat-of-arms, provided that the disposition falls within the terms of the destination clause of the original Letters Patent.

As far as legitimacy is concerned there is a small cloud on the horizon. Under EU law (and this does effect Britain) children born out of wedlock now enjoy the same legal rights as those children of a lawful, or recognized, marriage. How this will effect titles and what is called "the Law of Arms" has yet to be fully realized-- or tested in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Heraldicly speaking it would seem logical that for purposes of cadency natural children would follow in precedence after those children born in a lawful or recognized marriage. Of course this would only apply if the natural child bore the surname of the armigerous parent. The basis of this line of reasoning is that in a marriage both parties enter into a contact, and that contract endows each party with certain expectations. One of those expectations (on the side of the wife) is that her husband's children, born of her body, will enjoy rights of inheritance superior to those children conceived and born outside of their union.