This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The statement "If Lord Selkirk has a surviving son, the title descends normally" may not be true. I am unsure. When Lord James Douglas-Hamilton succeeded to the Earldom of Selkirk on his father's death, he was a member of the House of Commons in John Major's administration (which had a very slim majority). A vital vote was imminent. So he renounced the peerage (for himself only of course) and voted. Subsequently he was given a life peerage. Thereby getting him a vote in the House of Lords which he would not necessarily have had if he had become Lord Selkirk. Kittybrewster 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Bear with me a little more! Suppose the duke/earl has three sons (Tom, Dick, Harry). Tom becomes duke, Dick becomes earl. Dick then dies childless, survived by both Tom and Harry. Which of them is the next earl? Did the 7th earl have a younger brother? — Tamfang 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
New game! Dick has two sons. Dick's first son's issue fails after a few more generations. Is the next earl the heir of Dick's second son, or a descendant of Tom? — Tamfang 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a recollection that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and a cousin fought a court case over the exact translation of the inheritance - basically on the death on a childless second son Earl, should it have devolved on the third son or onto the next generation's Duke's younger brother? It was further complicated as the third son had passed away as well, leaving his son to claim. And Douglas-Hamilton was always intending to renounce the peerage himself, but fighting so his son could inherit it. Timrollpickering 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A recent edit changed brother to son and before to after. That fails to express the rule (if I understand right) that a duke inherits the earldom only if he has no brother. — Tamfang ( talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It says that the 1st earl of selkirk changed his name because he was of "a lesser degree" than his wife. sure a duchess is higher ranked than an earl, but not that much. Rather it was probably required for him to receive his wife's property. Tinynanorobots ( talk) 16:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The statement "If Lord Selkirk has a surviving son, the title descends normally" may not be true. I am unsure. When Lord James Douglas-Hamilton succeeded to the Earldom of Selkirk on his father's death, he was a member of the House of Commons in John Major's administration (which had a very slim majority). A vital vote was imminent. So he renounced the peerage (for himself only of course) and voted. Subsequently he was given a life peerage. Thereby getting him a vote in the House of Lords which he would not necessarily have had if he had become Lord Selkirk. Kittybrewster 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Bear with me a little more! Suppose the duke/earl has three sons (Tom, Dick, Harry). Tom becomes duke, Dick becomes earl. Dick then dies childless, survived by both Tom and Harry. Which of them is the next earl? Did the 7th earl have a younger brother? — Tamfang 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
New game! Dick has two sons. Dick's first son's issue fails after a few more generations. Is the next earl the heir of Dick's second son, or a descendant of Tom? — Tamfang 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a recollection that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and a cousin fought a court case over the exact translation of the inheritance - basically on the death on a childless second son Earl, should it have devolved on the third son or onto the next generation's Duke's younger brother? It was further complicated as the third son had passed away as well, leaving his son to claim. And Douglas-Hamilton was always intending to renounce the peerage himself, but fighting so his son could inherit it. Timrollpickering 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A recent edit changed brother to son and before to after. That fails to express the rule (if I understand right) that a duke inherits the earldom only if he has no brother. — Tamfang ( talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It says that the 1st earl of selkirk changed his name because he was of "a lesser degree" than his wife. sure a duchess is higher ranked than an earl, but not that much. Rather it was probably required for him to receive his wife's property. Tinynanorobots ( talk) 16:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)