On Inheritance. . .

[MstrTal]

This may sound random, however I know little to nothing about inheritance practices in a society that possess titles. What little I have been able to look up online has been of little help as well.

I understand that if a Titled individual passes (read as dies) then their title in most cases is passed on to their oldest child or some other member of their family. My question though is a little more convoluted. What happens if the oldest child is missing and presumed dead for a period of time and the Title is passed on to say a cousin? If the child is found or "Returns from the Grave" is the Title then stripped from the cousin and granted to the child or does the cousin keep it?

I have an idea for a sub-plot and I want to be as accurate as possible. I could fudge it but would rather not.

 

[The Judge]

First of all, although most titles pass according to primogeniture, there's no reason your society can't do it differently -- some kings could nominate the heir to the throne, for instance, so there's no reason why a peer in that society couldn't do the same.

Anyhow, a presumption of death in England and Wales where there is land to be inherited requires seven years unexplained absence, but again you can make this whatever you want.

As to a person returning and claiming the title, I'm pretty sure this is what would happen, though it's not something I've checked at any length. The Tichborne case may be of interest in this respect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tichborne_case -- as Roger was presumed dead, his younger brother Alfred inherited the title when their father died, but when a man claiming to be Roger turned up some time later, the title was then in issue. In that case, the man couldn't prove his case so Alfred's son continued with the title.

There have been more recent court actions where two rival claimants for a title have taken proceedings, but I can't recall names off-hand, and from memory these weren't presumed dead cases.

 

[stephen.samuels]

In Roman culture, inheritance of titles, land and offices were predicated on the heir being of a certain standing, i.e. a drunk lay about would not necessarily become a lord by birth. It made for great social mobility

 

[Sapheron]

I think it depends too much on the society for any of us to answer clearly. Disputes within Rome generally went to the courts, for example, while those of Saxon England often ended with burning down each other's houses and stealing their cows.

In addition, who decides? In a peaceful, law abiding state where the rule of law is firm then the elder would probably get the title if he could prove his identity. In a feudal war torn nation where the problem is a distraction to the king and he has to make a decision he'll pick whichever brother will strengthen his own position to the most, and justice will most likely be considered irrelevent.

The cynical parts of me would suggest that in the modern day, the title would go to whoever could afford the better representation in court. Though I think the reason for absense might also factor heavily. If someone had been kidnapped by the taliban for a few years people would probably let them have their title. If they'd run away to avoid their debts and taxes and come back once they could get out of it somehow, not so much.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

First of all, although most titles pass according to primogeniture, there's no reason your society can't do it differently -- some kings could nominate the heir to the throne, for instance, so there's no reason why a peer in that society couldn't do the same.

Anyhow, a presumption of death in England and Wales where there is land to be inherited requires seven years unexplained absence, but again you can make this whatever you want.

As to a person returning and claiming the title, I'm pretty sure this is what would happen, though it's not something I've checked at any length. The Tichborne case may be of interest in this respect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tichborne_case -- as Roger was presumed dead, his younger brother Alfred inherited the title when their father died, but when a man claiming to be Roger turned up some time later, the title was then in issue. In that case, the man couldn't prove his case so Alfred's son continued with the title.

Everything I've read on the subject agrees with what you say here, where there is a clear law and the law is upheld.

But I agree with Sapheron that:

I think it depends too much on the society for any of us to answer clearly. Disputes within Rome generally went to the courts, for example, while those of Saxon England often ended with burning down each other's houses and stealing their cows.

In addition, who decides? In a peaceful, law abiding state where the rule of law is firm then the elder would probably get the title if he could prove his identity. In a feudal war torn nation where the problem is a distraction to the king and he has to make a decision he'll pick whichever brother will strengthen his own position to the most, and justice will most likely be considered irrelevent.

But here only partially:

The cynical parts of me would suggest that in the modern day, the title would go to whoever could afford the better representation in court. Though I think the reason for absense might also factor heavily. If someone had been kidnapped by the taliban for a few years people would probably let them have their title. If they'd run away to avoid their debts and taxes and come back once they could get out of it somehow, not so much.

The way things work these days, I think the person with more money and better lawyers would have a better chance of discrediting the other claimant (supposing there is any reasonable doubt that the "returning heir" is who he says he is), but I am sure that why the heir had disappeared wouldn't come into it, as the only question for the court to decide would be his identity.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

It depends on what you need for the story. In David Weber's Honor Harrington books, her titles are given to her cousin when she is presumed dead, and then when she reappears, alive after all, the queen leaves the original title with her cousin and gives her an even better one. I'm trying to recall, but I'm pretty sure that her titles on her other world just reverted back to her since they had been passed on to her minor siblings.

It shouldn't be a matter for anyone to question, whatever you decide -- as long as it makes sense.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It shouldn't be a matter for anyone to question, whatever you decide -- as long as it makes sense.

I agree. So long as it seems logical within the framework of the society you create, no one should question it.

Depending on your story, you may want to describe your system of inheritance in detail, or it may be the less said the better (which is one way to avoid inconsistencies).

 

[Gumboot]

Another thing to consider is whether the title is hereditary. A lot of titles are granted titles, held at the pleasure of whoever is in charge. By tradition they might bestow the title on the old guy's son, but this isn't a given, and once the title has been given to someone else, that's the end of it, even if an older son suddenly turns up.

 

[MstrTal]

Thanks you have all given me something to think about.

Also what about the "Rightful Heir" not being found only to be discovered decades later? Say the child of the original Titles holder who due to plot convenient circumstances shows up later. Would it be outside the realm of possibility for the long lost child heir to inherent even if a cousin has held the Title for 15 to 20+ years?

I know I could "make" it work but I am curious now and wonder how things like this would work in the UK and other modern nations with a Titled Peerage.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

If he is the rightful heir, then it wouldn't matter how long the cousin was presumed to hold the title because legally he never really did. Of course you could invent or adopt a system where this was not the case, or a reason why the law was circumvented (corruption at the highest level, for instance) if convenient for your story, but if your story depends on the real guy turning up and claiming his title decades later, then you don't have to explain it, because in most western European countries that's how it would be.

The cousin would probably not take it very well ...

 

[The Judge]

The problem with a long lost child heir is one of proof -- it's one thing recognising a man who disappeared 20 years ago since birth marks etc rarely change, but accepting an unknown child who only claims to be the son of the man who disappeared... The burden of proof would be on the claimant, and in a society without access to DNA tests and the like, then he'd definitely find it an uphill battle. The more prestige and/or wealth attaching to the title, the harder the case will be fought. (But don't forget that title and wealth needn't be the same thing -- it's possible for the lands to be severed from the title itself and passed in accordance with a will, not under the rules of succession.)

If you want some more reading this might be a place to start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_law

 

[Montero]

Something else to think about - the viability of an estate/farm. Some cultures have gone for the option of split equally between all children - but then it gets ever smaller, ever more sub-divided. You can also finish up with a crazy paving of ownership, with everyone's fields mixed up and no-one has a nice block of fields together in one place. There can then be an occasional rationalisation - as in everyone agrees to swap round to put their land all in one block.
Then in a few generations it has to be done all over again.

With male primogeniture, there was an English aristocracy tradition/habit of the younger sons going into Army/Navy/Church - can't remember if a specific son went to a specific role. (As no 2 church, no 3 army etc). Women were wives or useful relatives (or extra mouths to feed). With farms it was often assumed that the daughters would become other farmers' wives and if that didn't happen there could be old age poverty for those surplus women.

So depending on what inheritance system you go for, there are social and economic consequences which you would need to reflect in your wider world building.

 

[MstrTal]

Thanks everyone!

So far the idea I am kicking around is to have the mother of my protagonist assassinated when she is an infant and then have the protagonist stolen and placed in fosterage so that she has no clue who she really is. It would just be another of the many layers to her character. It would also giver her yet another enemy. I.E. the lesser branch segment of the family that went all Machiavellian in her infancy for the title.

 

[Montero]

The long lost Prince/Princess who was hidden as a baby type of plot has been done an awful lot in fantasy - and parodied by Terry Pratchett with his Captain Carrot character.

 

[MstrTal]

I know its been done before. I plan being a touch tongue in cheek about it and a little twisted. Besides I never said princess. Plus I am working on an Urban Fantasy not High Fantasy so there is a lot of room (in my head anyways) to play.

 

[Glitch]

Thanks everyone!

So far the idea I am kicking around is to have the mother of my protagonist assassinated when she is an infant and then have the protagonist stolen and placed in fosterage so that she has no clue who she really is. It would just be another of the many layers to her character. It would also giver her yet another enemy. I.E. the lesser branch segment of the family that went all Machiavellian in her infancy for the title.

Nothing wrong with this idea. It's not how many times it has been done before, but how you decide to write it that matters.

The issue is how your protagonist proves she is who she says she is.

 

[MstrTal]

I wasn't going to have her prove it at all. At some point she is going to be arrested and processed for murder. Part of that processing is going to be a DNA swab. I figured I would have the various factions involved come out of the woodwork then. Just something else to complicate my protagonists life and make things more interesting.

 

[Montero]

I meant Princess generically....

But yes, your plot twist is rather fresher than someone galloping in to make a claim and hadn't realised you were talking urban fantasy.

(I'd be a little careful as to how much you post in an open forum - possibly being a little paranoid here but....)

 

[MstrTal]

I meant Princess generically....

But yes, your plot twist is rather fresher than someone galloping in to make a claim and hadn't realised you were talking urban fantasy.

(I'd be a little careful as to how much you post in an open forum - possibly being a little paranoid here but....)

True that is more than I usually post about my Works in Progress but it is a sub plot of a sub plot of a sub plot.

 

[JoanDrake]

Thanks everyone!

So far the idea I am kicking around is to have the mother of my protagonist assassinated when she is an infant and then have the protagonist stolen and placed in fosterage so that she has no clue who she really is. It would just be another of the many layers to her character. It would also giver her yet another enemy. I.E. the lesser branch segment of the family that went all Machiavellian in her infancy for the title.

I wasn't going to have her prove it at all. At some point she is going to be arrested and processed for murder. Part of that processing is going to be a DNA swab. I figured I would have the various factions involved come out of the woodwork then. Just something else to complicate my protagonists life and make things more interesting.

That begs the question of why she would even want the title, or could the fact be that she doesn't, but the Machiavellians won't believe that, be the twist?

And isn't this part of the plot of Beautiful People, the movie to be released on February 14, (somehow, I get the idea it might be a romance) which revolves around this girl who is born Queen of Evil Vampires, (or maybe Evil Witches, I dunno) but who doesn't want to be?

Interesting. Is there any country like America, where you must renounce your citizenship to accept any foreign title but where you CANNOT renounce your citizenship there once naturalized? They could be havens for people with unwanted titles, (though I doubt they would be all that large a group)

OK, you should do some research on how DNA tests are handled, as I may be wrong here, and it may vary from country to country, (particularly France, where you are presumed guilty,) however, if one follows logic, what I know of HIPPA regulations and what they do with fingerprints in the USA, then DNA results do not become public record unless they prove guilt. If they prove innocence then they are thrown away and not publicly disclosed. So how would it be found out that she was this titled person unless you have her being found guilty of murder?