Cousins and nephews of the title holder can’t be heirs apparent
The heir apparent is the person who
- is first in the order of succession, and
- cannot be displaced from inheriting when someone else is born.
A cousin or a nephew would normally be an heir presumptive, which is a person who is currently first in the order of succession, but who can be displaced if the current titleholder has a son (or, rarely, depending on the inheritance conditions of the title, a daughter). It doesn’t matter if the title holder is old, celibate, unmarried, or even medically impotent. As long as he lives, the rules presume he can father a child of his own.
Only heirs apparent get to use one of the title-holder’s lesser titles. The title holder doesn’t get to decide who gets the title. The order of succession is set up in the papers that established the title. Usually, heirs male of the body, which means the first-born son in a direct line.
The title-holder can’t give away lands that are entailed to the title, either. An entail leaves the lands to a future title holder, with the current title holder having right of possession. You cannot give away or sell what you don’t own.
Oh, thank you! I’m pretty educated about the Regency period, but the details regarding the heir apparent and the heir presumptive always seemed to have a few details I wasn’t getting, such as why the heir presumptive didn’t get a courtesy title and the apparent did. With just a few lines, you’ve completely dispelled the confusion! Thanks very much, Jude.
My pleasure. It’s something I see other people getting wrong, so I figured I’d do an author’s note for Hook, Lyon and Sinker, where it is a salient point. This post was a summary of my author’s note.