In the 1700's, was it possible to be an earl of Smith by birth and an earl of Jones by marriage at the same time? Could one bear the title of earl and baron at the same time? Gary

You could certainly have more than one title - in fact most Earls etc did so. The "lesser" title would go to eldest son. This is still the case. But titles in England only come down the male line. Their were some peeresses "in their own right". But I'm not sure these title could be inherited. Scotland was different - but I'm not sure of the details. Christopher Richards ----- Original Message ----- From: <GaryIvoDe@aol.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 5:43 AM Subject: [OEL] Titles > In the 1700's, was it possible to be an earl of Smith by birth > and an earl of Jones by marriage at the same time? > > Could one bear the title of earl and baron at the same time? > > Gary > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > > >

In message <160.31aa1815.2e1e2ad9@aol.com>, GaryIvoDe@aol.com writes >In the 1700's, was it possible to be an earl of Smith by birth >and an earl of Jones by marriage at the same time? First, the title of Earl 90% of the time is attached not to a surname but to a location. You do get exceptions, like Earl Spencer, Earl Russell and so on, usually if there are other titles in other branches of that family. . If it is 'Earl of' then a place name will follow. Titles cannot just be assumed on marriage, but often, if an Earl (or other peer), say the Earl of Neasden, marries the sole heiress of the Earl of Mucke, and she has no uncles or male cousins waiting in the wings to inherit the title, then the monarch might make a new creation of the Earldom for the husband and their heirs. So one man could be fourth Earl of Neasden and Ist Earl of Mucke (new creation) In the ordinary way, most English titles were heritable in the male line, so if the eldest brother has daughters, the title will pass to the second brother (or his eldest son). If the line would otherwise run out, or the Earl was allowed to make special arrangements when he was ennobled, then a daughter might be able to pass on the title. Earl Mountbatten had two daughters only, so he arranged that his elder daughter should actually succeed him as Countess Mountbatten - but then, he was closely linked to the royal family. Nelson arranged to have his title passed to his brother, then, failing his heirs, to the sons of his sisters in turn, and they took the surname Nelson when they inherited (in fact, they kept running out of heirs male and the title passed down to a kinsman who was a police sergeant at the time) > >Could one bear the title of earl and baron at the same time? Yes - usually the peer would go through the stage of being a baron first, for a few generations, then be made up to Earl, if he greased the right palms. By convention, the eldest son of a peer takes the minor title of his father, as a matter of courtesy > >Gary > > >==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- >Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to >OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society