[ANON POST] Getting Into, and Out Of, the House of Lords (UK)

[orange_fell]

My novel is set in 1865. One of the characters is an earl, a member of the House of Lords. Of course he inherited the title from his father. But when he actually arrived in London to take his seat, was there a ceremony? They have ceremonies for everything. Surely he did not just show up and sit down

Comments

[lilacsigil]

It's just so extremely unlikely that there is another heir that no, I don't think it ever happened. If there was any doubt about his position, he wouldn't get to take his seat until that had been confirmed.

Details about the first sitting: skip past the Letters Patent section as someone who inherited their title will already have Letters Patent for the title, and this gives a good overview.
This is more detailed about the ceremony

[bopeepsheep]

I'm now trying to think of a suitable Victorian Melodramatic Reason for this scenario...

First wife of Earl runs away or disappears while known to be pregnant; plausible corpse found a year later; he remarries and has children inc. heir A. First wife and heir B turn up 25 years later with complicated-but-verifiable backstory?

[lilacsigil]

For sure there's going to be a birthmark or a locket involved!

[syntinen_laulu]

I can think of at least three that really happened

[orange_fell]

In the Palliser novels by Anthony Trollope (set in the 1860s-70s), one of the main characters goes from the House of Commons to the House of Lords when he inherits a dukedom. Unfortunately I haven't read the books and it's been too long since I watched the TV version, so I can't remember if there was any ceremony, but you should be able to find the books at your library and find the relevant parts. I think the old duke dies in "The Eustace Diamonds."

[bookwormsarah]

Is the other heir legitimate? This would affect things.

[alextiefling]

If they're not legitimate, they're not an heir. On the rare occasions when peers' bastards got admitted to the House, they had new peerages created (or re-created) for them.

[bookwormsarah]

Exactly this. Sometimes people assume bloodline is everything...

[marycatelli]

Hmmm. . . Anne Boleyn was recreated a marquess and as created, the title could descend to her illegitimate children. So it is theoretically possible to have an illegitimate heir but only if the title was specially given with such a condition.

[jayb111]

If it happened in RL I imagine the House of Lords would be the least of anyone's worries. There'd be all the entailed estates to sort out. I should think there'd be legal proceedings which would drag on for years before any new claimant came anywhere near the Lords.

It's not a peerage, but have you read about the Tichborne Claimant, as an example of what might happen in such a situation?

In the case of someone who was born illegitimate, if his parents subsequently married he could be regarded as legitimate except for when it came to claiming a title - to avoid just this type of situation, I imagine. You'd need to check exactly what legislation there was relating to that, and when.

If the title was ultimately awarded to the new claimant, I suppose the original holder just wouldn't go to the Lords any more. If he was a decent chap who'd acted in good faith throughout and especially if he'd held some kind of government office and the government wanted to keep him in the job, I daresay a new peerage would be created for him.

[nineveh_uk]

It was the Legitimacy Act of 1926 that legitimised children whose parents were not married at the time (provided they had not been married to other people in the meantime), but as you note it doesn't apply to claiming peerages. And it's too late for the OP anyway!

That said, I think that in Scotland a legitimised child can inherent some peerages (rules on inheritance of Scottish peerages are different to English ones, and I am no expert). I have no idea when that happened, but it may be worth looking into. However you'd still need there to have been a marriage before the birth of the presumed heir.

[marycatelli]

Under Scottish law, the couple's marrying, if they could have married at the time the child was conceived, retroactively legitimates any children.

[syntinen_laulu]

Scottish law of the period is a wonderfully rich source of potential marriage confusion. Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 had ensured that in England no marriage was valid unless solemnised by a parson and either the banns had been properly read on three consecutive Sundays in a parish where are least one of the parties was resident, or a licence had been obtained from a bishop. But in Scotland anyone could solemnise a marriage at a moment's notice; hence all those elopements to Gretna Green. But in addition, Scottish law - unlike English law - derives from Roman law and recognises 'marriage by use'. In Scotland, if a man promised a woman unequivocally to marry her, and she slept with him on that assurance, the sexual act was held to complete the contract of marriage. If a canny Scots lass was careful to obtain clear written or witness evidence of that promise and went on to yield her all, her would-be deceiver could find that he had unwittingly and irrevocably married her!

[occasionalhope]

I think the Lord Chancellor needed to issue a writ for a peer's first appearance, and there was definitely a ceremony. Here is the current procedure, with some indications of how it has changed: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldcerint/078/cere03.htm... )