Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 - Feb 2026

[wbenson]

Robert is the Duke of Purple and has two sons. He then also becomes the Marquess of Torquise when his distance cousin died childless. Is there any way for the two titles to be split again upon his death? Like the eldest son inheriting the Duke of Purple while the younger son becomes the Marquess of Torquise?

There's one peerage with a remainder that's written this way. If the Duke of Hamilton becomes the Earl of Selkirk (or vice-versa), the earldom is inherited by his second son if he has one. This last happened in 1940, when the 13th Duke of Hamilton died and his second son became Earl of Selkirk. In 1994, when that earl died without any sons, the earldom was inherited by the second son of the late 14th duke under the same principle.

There are also conditions under which a Scottish peerage can be inherited by a legitimated child, so someone with a mix of Scottish and other peerages could theoretically have some peerages inherited by a legitimated eldest child, but others inherited by a child who was born legitimate.

 

[yukari]

Thank you @Tatiana Maria and @wbenson !! I really appreciate your answers. I google Earl of Selkirk and got a headache reading this unique remainder as the effect of the 2nd Earl's surrender and novodamus .

1. the titles would pass to the heirs male of the 1st earl's younger sons before the heirs male of his eldest son (who was heir apparent to his mother's Dukedom of Hamilton);
2. if the person who would otherwise inherit the title was already duke of Hamilton (or would inherit that dukedom at the same time), the titles would pass instead to that duke's next surviving brother;
3. if the titles were ever held by a duke of Hamilton (either because an earl of Selkirk succeeded as duke of Hamilton, or because provision 2 was unable to operate because the heir was a duke of Hamilton who had no surviving younger brothers), the titles would pass on that duke's death to his second surviving son;
4. if the titles had passed to a younger brother or younger son under provisions 2 or 3, they would then pass to his heirs male on his death; but
5. if such a younger son or younger brother's heirs male died out, the title would not pass to his own younger brothers and their heirs male, but would instead revert to the senior male line, with provisions 2 and 3 operating as before.

Okay, back to Robert's scenario. Let's say he and his first son just disclaim/surrender their right to the Marquess title, can it make the title go to the second son (and his descendants) as the next in line? Thus avoiding the union between two titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Okay, back to Robert's scenario. Let's say he and his first son just disclaim/surrender their right to the Marquess title, can it make the title go to the second son (and his descendants) as the next in line? Thus avoiding the union between two titles.

You're welcome! No, disclaiming a peerage cannot alter the order of succession:

"3 Effects of disclaimer.
(1)The disclaimer of a peerage by any person under this Act [...] shall not accelerate the succession to that peerage nor affect its devolution on his death."

Peerage Act 1963

An Act to authorise the disclaimer for life of certain hereditary peerages; to include among the peers qualified to sit in the House of Lords all peers in the peerage of Scotland and peeresses in their own right in the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom; to...

www.legislation.gov.uk

While it is extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, I would love it if the UK adopted the Spanish system of distribution, where subsidiary titles may be diverted to cadet lines, as it would allow more historic peerages to be "on view".

 

[yukari]

You're welcome! No, disclaiming a peerage cannot alter the order of succession:

"3 Effects of disclaimer.
(1)The disclaimer of a peerage by any person under this Act [...] shall not accelerate the succession to that peerage nor affect its devolution on his death."

Peerage Act 1963

An Act to authorise the disclaimer for life of certain hereditary peerages; to include among the peers qualified to sit in the House of Lords all peers in the peerage of Scotland and peeresses in their own right in the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom; to...

www.legislation.gov.uk

I read the Act, but I'm not sure I understand it correctly (why legal wording is always so confusing). Correct me if I'm wrong, so based on this Act, in Robert's case, if he disclaims the Marquess of Turquoise, the title will go abeyance and his second son can only claim after his death and the first son also died without heir (which also mean he'll also become the Duke of Purple as well)?

And this apply for every British (including Scottish) titles after 1963? Because reading about Duke of Hamilton, in 1698 the 3rd Duchess resigned her title and his son became the 4th Duke while she's still alive.

While it is extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, I would love it if the UK adopted the Spanish system of distribution, where subsidiary titles may be diverted to cadet lines, as it would allow more historic peerages to be "on view".

Well, at least the heir and the heir's heir can use the subsidiary titles as their courtesy title so some of it still "on view". But yes, reading the long list of subsidiary titles for the Duke of Hamilton for example, I also thought "what a waste, wouldn't it be grand it it can be split between their descendants".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I read the Act, but I'm not sure I understand it correctly (why legal wording is always so confusing). Correct me if I'm wrong, so based on this Act, in Robert's case, if he disclaims the Marquess of Turquoise, the title will go abeyance and his second son can only claim after his death and the first son also died without heir (which also mean he'll also become the Duke of Purple as well)?

That's correct. As Section 1 notes, the disclaimer is only "for his life". Once the (former) peer who disclaimed dies, the succession occurs as if he had never disclaimed the peerage.

And this apply for every British (including Scottish) titles after 1963? Because reading about Duke of Hamilton, in 1698 the 3rd Duchess resigned her title and his son became the 4th Duke while she's still alive.

The Scottish practice of resigning peerages to the Crown, in order for the Crown to regrant them with adjustments, was abolished when the Crowns of Scotland and England were formally united in 1707.

http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index18.htm

 

[Mbruno]

If I understood it correctly, Sir Keir Starmer said today at PMQs that the government will introduce legislation to officially strip Lord Mandelson of his peerage. That is a step up from mere removal from the Roll of the Peerage as in Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's case and creates an interesting precedent. The PM also said that the government will introduce separate legislation regarding expulsion of peers in general from the House of Lords.

Unfortunately I don't have a link to share.

EDIT: The King has also agreed, on the PM's request, to remove Lord Mandelson from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If I understood it correctly, Sir Keir Starmer said today at PMQs that the government will introduce legislation to officially strip Lord Mandelson of his peerage. That is a step up from mere removal from the Roll of the Peerage as in Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's case and created an interesting precedent. The PM also said the government will introduce separate legislation regardinh expulsion of peers in general from the House of Lords.

Unfortunately I don't have a link to share.

EDIT: The King has also agreed, in the PM's request, to remove Lord Mandelson from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.

Some of us have been discussing and posting links on this topic here:

The British Nobility thread 2: Sep 2022 -

The Marchioness of Bath attended the unveiling of "A Visionary Dream You Can Touch" to celebrate the holiday season at Harrods today, December 1: ** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[Mbruno]

Some of us have been discussing and posting links on this topic here:

The British Nobility thread 2: Sep 2022 -

The Marchioness of Bath attended the unveiling of "A Visionary Dream You Can Touch" to celebrate the holiday season at Harrods today, December 1: ** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **

www.theroyalforums.com

My understanding from the clip I saw from PMQs is that the government intends to introduce both specific legislation dealing with the removal of Lord Mandelson's peerage only and general legislation relating to the exclusion of peers from the House of Lords (for criminal behavior?). The latter is not necessarily tied to removal of the peerage per se.

I am waiting for more details when the proposed bills are published.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is this for alleged criminal behaviour or only after a conviction. If the former then the Presumption of Innocence is also being removed in the UK.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is this for alleged criminal behaviour or only after a conviction. If the former then the Presumption of Innocence is also being removed in the UK.

No criminal conviction yet.

See the Prime Minister's statement (and other reports) in the thread The British Nobility thread 2: Sep 2022 -.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It has been talked about here and elsewhere that usage of titles in forms that are conventionally considered incorrect appears to be on the rise, even in high-society or establishment circles.

Here is another example: A Government(!) website refers to e.g. "The Rt Hon Lord Peter Mandelson".

The Rt Hon Lord Peter Mandelson - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

For those unaware: Conventional usage would omit the "Peter". By convention, "Lord Peter" is only correct for the son of a duke or marquess. A baron is correctly referred to as "Lord Mandelson", not "Lord Peter Mandelson".

If it is necessary to indicate a peer's surname, then according to tradition, it is supposed to be given as "Peter, Lord Mandelson" or "Lord (Peter) Mandelson".

Nevertheless, it has become rather common to incorrectly refer to barons and other peers as "Lord/Lady Forename Surname".


Another recent title error from the government (though this one was likely politically motivated): a government spokesman referring to Mandelson as "former Lord Mandelson" in Parliament.

While he has resigned from the House of Lords, that does not make Mandelson a "former" Lord, as he remains a baron.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-02-05/debates/BA6831CD-4FD9-46C7-B23A-503403ED4280/BusinessOfTheHouse#contribution-AFF2D241-321B-46CD-9D67-CC11FBB4F31E

 

[Marengo]

It is time to close this thread. You can find the new one here:

Questions about British Styles and Titles 4: Feb 2026 -

Arms of The United Kingdom Welcome to the thread Questions about British Styles and Titles, Part 4 Commencing 9 February 2026 The previous thread can be found here Please take a look at the TRF Community Rules · Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here...

www.theroyalforums.com