Adopted Children of Peers

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

By a Royal Warrant dated 30 April 2004 the Queen declared:

"Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration that children
adopted within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by Peers of the
Realm are not accorded the style and courtesy titles proper to the
children of Peers:

Now We are graciously pleased to ordain and declare that such styles
and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers of
the Realm shall be accorded to the children of Peers adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within the meaning of
the Adoption and Children Act 2002 notwithstanding that no right of
succession to any dignity or title of honour nor any precedence is
thereby conferred upon them."

Note that it is "such styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the
YOUNGER children of Peers of the Realm", consequently if say the
Marquess of Blankshire had no blood children but two adopted sons, the
eldest of them would not be able to use any of the Marquess's
subsidiary titles as a courtesy title but would, along with his
brother, be known simply as "Lord <forename> <surname>".

Not a big change, but certainly a move in the direction of equality in
peerage matters.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.heraldicmedia.com

[James Dempster]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:52:12 +0000 (UTC), Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
"Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration that children
adopted within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by Peers of the
Realm are not accorded the style and courtesy titles proper to the
Now We are graciously pleased to ordain and declare that such styles
and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers of
the Realm shall be accorded to the children of Peers adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within the meaning of
the Adoption and Children Act 2002 notwithstanding that no right of
succession to any dignity or title of honour nor any precedence is
thereby conferred upon them."
Note that it is "such styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the
YOUNGER children of Peers of the Realm", consequently if say the
Marquess of Blankshire had no blood children but two adopted sons, the
eldest of them would not be able to use any of the Marquess's
subsidiary titles as a courtesy title but would, along with his
brother, be known simply as "Lord <forename> <surname>".
Not a big change, but certainly a move in the direction of equality in
peerage matters.

Disappointing for the adopted children of peers where the adoption
took place before the 1976 act though.

James
James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

[John Horton]

James Dempster<***@talksinsentences.nospam.fsnet.co.uk> 8/6/04 20:54:15 >>>
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:52:12 +0000 (UTC), Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<***@heraldicmedia.com> wrote:

:>"Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration that children

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
adopted within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by Peers of the
Realm are not accorded the style and courtesy titles proper to the

:>Now We are graciously pleased to ordain and declare that such styles

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers of
the Realm shall be accorded to the children of Peers adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within the meaning of
the Adoption and Children Act 2002 notwithstanding that no right of
succession to any dignity or title of honour nor any precedence is
thereby conferred upon them."

:Disappointing for the adopted children of peers where the adoption
took place before the 1976 act though.

Not necessarily - the phraseology refers to "within the meaning of" and not "under the terms of" (or similar).

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
"Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration that children
adopted within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by Peers of the
Realm are not accorded the style and courtesy titles proper to the
Now We are graciously pleased to ordain and declare that such styles
and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers of
the Realm shall be accorded to the children of Peers adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within the meaning of
the Adoption and Children Act 2002 notwithstanding that no right of
succession to any dignity or title of honour nor any precedence is
thereby conferred upon them."
Note that it is "such styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the
YOUNGER children of Peers of the Realm", consequently if say the
Marquess of Blankshire had no blood children but two adopted sons, the
eldest of them would not be able to use any of the Marquess's
subsidiary titles as a courtesy title but would, along with his
brother, be known simply as "Lord <forename> <surname>".
Not a big change, but certainly a move in the direction of equality in
peerage matters.

And therefore to be regretted.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Anne]

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
"Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration that children
adopted within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by Peers of the
Realm are not accorded the style and courtesy titles proper to the
Now We are graciously pleased to ordain and declare that such styles
and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers of
the Realm shall be accorded to the children of Peers adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within the meaning of
the Adoption and Children Act 2002 notwithstanding that no right of
succession to any dignity or title of honour nor any precedence is
thereby conferred upon them."
Note that it is "such styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the
YOUNGER children of Peers of the Realm", consequently if say the
Marquess of Blankshire had no blood children but two adopted sons, the
eldest of them would not be able to use any of the Marquess's
subsidiary titles as a courtesy title but would, along with his
brother, be known simply as "Lord <forename> <surname>".
Not a big change, but certainly a move in the direction of equality in
peerage matters.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS

What about biological children of peers who were born before the marriage of
their parents? Shouldn't they have the same right to courtesy titles? Or
would their parents have to "adopt" them to gain the courtesy title?

[Peter Tilman]

Post by Anne
What about biological children of peers who were born before the marriage of
their parents? Shouldn't they have the same right to courtesy titles? Or
would their parents have to "adopt" them to gain the courtesy title?

They are already allowed courtesy titles.

[Gidzmo]

Post by Anne
What about biological children of peers who were born before the marriage of

their parents? Shouldn't they have the same right to courtesy titles?

You might check the Lascalles family (George V's eldest daughter, Victoria
Mary, m. the 6th Earl of Harewood).

Several of her two sons' children (and some of their children, IIRC) were born
out of wedlock. I believe that those children are known as "the Honourable
<Firstname> Lascalles."

[Andy.III]

Post by Gidzmo
Several of her two sons' children (and some of their children, IIRC) were born
out of wedlock. I believe that those children are known as "the Honourable
<Firstname> Lascalles."

Indeed they are- and each was granted the Hon. individually by the powers that
be. not as a birthright.


Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"

[Michael Rhodes]

Post by Andy.III

Post by Gidzmo
Several of her two sons' children (and some of their children, IIRC) were born
out of wedlock. I believe that those children are known as "the Honourable
<Firstname> Lascalles."

Indeed they are- and each was granted the Hon. individually by the powers that
be. not as a birthright.
Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"

But all legitimated children of peers are granted courtesy titles. No
favouritism was shown to the Lascelles family.

--

[Andy.III]

Post by Michael Rhodes
But all legitimated children of peers are granted courtesy titles. No
favouritism was shown to the Lascelles family.
--

Are they not granted upon requested rather than by the mere marriages that
legitiamtes them?

IOW:

Viscount A and Miss Bloggs have a child.

Viscout A and Miss Bloggd then wed/ Does the child automatically become "Hon."
merely because of the marriage or must application be made to the crown ( even
tho it will automatically be granted by the Crown).

If Viscount A and his wive have a child AGTER marriage they will automacially
be "Hom" with no action of any kind required.. correct?


Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"

[Gidzmo]

Post by Andy.III
Viscount A and Miss Bloggs have a child.
Viscout A and Miss Blogg then wed. Does the child automatically become

"the Honourable" merely because of the marriage, or must application be made to
the Crown (even though it will automatically be granted by the Crown)?

Post by Andy.III
If Viscount A and his wive have a child AGTER marriage they will automacially

be "the Honourable," with no action of any kind required.. correct?

The rule, as I understand it, is that a child of a Viscount (or lower title)
are styled as "the Honourable <firstname> Lascelles" if the child is born AFTER
the parents' marriage.

What I'm not clear on is the rule for if the child is born BEFORE the parents'
marriage (as is the case in the Lascelles family).

[Peter Tilman]

Post by Andy.III

Post by Michael Rhodes
But all legitimated children of peers are granted courtesy titles. No
favouritism was shown to the Lascelles family.
--

Are they not granted upon requested rather than by the mere marriages that
legitiamtes them?
Viscount A and Miss Bloggs have a child.
Viscout A and Miss Bloggd then wed/ Does the child automatically become "Hon."
merely because of the marriage or must application be made to the crown ( even
tho it will automatically be granted by the Crown).

It's automatic.

Post by Andy.III
If Viscount A and his wive have a child AGTER marriage they will automacially
be "Hom" with no action of any kind required.. correct?

Yes.

[Torkel Nybakk Kvaal]

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
"Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration that children
adopted within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by Peers of the
Realm are not accorded the style and courtesy titles proper to the
Now We are graciously pleased to ordain and declare that such styles
and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers of
the Realm shall be accorded to the children of Peers adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within the meaning of
the Adoption and Children Act 2002 notwithstanding that no right of
succession to any dignity or title of honour nor any precedence is
thereby conferred upon them."

This seems to indicate that they get the style and courtesy titles of
younger children, but NOT the precedence. Am I reading it correct? So an
adopted son of the Duke of Sutton will be able to call himself Lord Henry
Smith, but is not given the precedence of a younger son of a Duke.

[Peter Tilman]

Post by Torkel Nybakk Kvaal

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
"Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration that children
adopted within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by Peers of the
Realm are not accorded the style and courtesy titles proper to the
Now We are graciously pleased to ordain and declare that such styles
and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of Peers of
the Realm shall be accorded to the children of Peers adopted within
the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976 or adopted within the meaning of
the Adoption and Children Act 2002 notwithstanding that no right of
succession to any dignity or title of honour nor any precedence is
thereby conferred upon them."

This seems to indicate that they get the style and courtesy titles of
younger children, but NOT the precedence. Am I reading it correct? So an
adopted son of the Duke of Sutton will be able to call himself Lord Henry
Smith, but is not given the precedence of a younger son of a Duke.

Yes. That's the way it works with legitimated children as well.

[mark]

As I understand it, the Queen can make an exception in the case of a
Peer who cannot have natural children, allowing an adopted child to
succeed to the Peerage -- if there are no other blood claimants to the
Peerage, say a nephew. A number of years back, a Scottish Peer, an
open homosexual, was permitted to adopt an heir, though I don't
remember whether the adopted child was related by blood. Anyone know?

I believe that the Romans had it right w/their attitude toward adopted
children: they saw NO difference and allowed an adopted son to succeed
to whatever status and possessions his father had when he died. I
believe that several of the old Patrician families kept their lines
going via adoption, having failed several generations in a row to
produce a male heir. Adoption kept the Imperium well supplied when it
came to the 5 "Good Emporers" -- Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antininus
Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. The first 4 had been unabashed homosexuals
who left no sons. Marcus Aurelius, a heterosexual, left Commodus, a
natural son, which showed that blood is not always so good.

[Peter Tilman]

Post by mark
As I understand it, the Queen can make an exception in the case of a
Peer who cannot have natural children, allowing an adopted child to
succeed to the Peerage -- if there are no other blood claimants to the
Peerage, say a nephew. A number of years back, a Scottish Peer, an
open homosexual, was permitted to adopt an heir, though I don't
remember whether the adopted child was related by blood. Anyone know?

Succession is governed purely by the Letters Patent creating the peerage,
and cannot be altered except by Act of Parliament, and The Queen cannot
simply alter the succession to a peerage at will. The vast majority of
Letters Patent state quite clearly that only heirs "of the body" of the
grantee can succeed, which rules out adopted children. Moreover, if peers
without heirs were allowed to adopt children to continue the peerage, then
peerages would never go extinct.

Post by mark
I believe that the Romans had it right w/their attitude toward adopted
children: they saw NO difference and allowed an adopted son to succeed
to whatever status and possessions his father had when he died. I
believe that several of the old Patrician families kept their lines
going via adoption, having failed several generations in a row to
produce a male heir. Adoption kept the Imperium well supplied when it
came to the 5 "Good Emporers" -- Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antininus
Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. The first 4 had been unabashed homosexuals
who left no sons. Marcus Aurelius, a heterosexual, left Commodus, a
natural son, which showed that blood is not always so good.

But the Roman method of adoption allowed Nero to come to the throne, which
could hardly be said to be a good thing.

[mark]

First a typo: Antoninus Pius, not Antininus Pius


<But the Roman method of adoption allowed Nero to come to the throne,
which
could hardly be said to be a good thing.>
True, neither method was perfect, but what is?

I do vaguely recall that a Scottish Earl, a homosexual, was allowed to
adopt a son -- no, not his boyfriend! -- so that the Peerage would not
become extinct. Now maybe an Act of Parliament was required, as you've
indicated, but I also recall that the Earl had at least first
approached HM to get her feeling on the matter, and HM approved. Tell
me, do you know, attainders: do they require an Act of Parliament, or
can the Crown execute them as prerogative? -- not that Peerages are
attained very often any more.

[Peter Tilman]

Post by mark
I do vaguely recall that a Scottish Earl, a homosexual, was allowed to
adopt a son -- no, not his boyfriend! -- so that the Peerage would not
become extinct. Now maybe an Act of Parliament was required, as you've
indicated, but I also recall that the Earl had at least first
approached HM to get her feeling on the matter, and HM approved.

All I can say is that I've never heard of such an event, and I imagine that
if it had happened it would be rather well-known due to its uniqueness in
peerage history.

Post by mark
Tell
me, do you know, attainders: do they require an Act of Parliament, or
can the Crown execute them as prerogative? -- not that Peerages are
attained very often any more.

They require an Act of Parliament (and, similarly, can only be reversed by
Act of Parliament). I seem to recall that the right of nobles not to have
their peerages removed by the monarch was one of the guarantees of Magna
Carta.

[mark]

<All I can say is that I've never heard of such an event, and I
imagine that
if it had happened it would be rather well-known due to its uniqueness
in
peerage history.>
Well, as I said, it was a vague recollection, something that I heard
-- more overheard -- on a trip to Scotland some years, maybe 15, ago.
I believe that I was seated in a railway station, waiting for
departure when I heard it being told by a tour director to his
tourists.

<They require an Act of Parliament (and, similarly, can only be
reversed by
Act of Parliament). I seem to recall that the right of nobles not to
have
their peerages removed by the monarch was one of the guarantees of
Magna
Carta.>

Thank you.

[John Horton]

Post by mark
As I understand it, the Queen can make an exception in the case of a

Peer who cannot have natural children, allowing an adopted child to
succeed to the Peerage -- if there are no other blood claimants to the
Peerage, say a nephew. A number of years back, a Scottish Peer, an
open homosexual, was permitted to adopt an heir, though I don't
remember whether the adopted child was related by blood. Anyone know?

I don't think the above is true. The Letters Patent governing a peerage can only be changed by Act of Parliament.

(You might also like to check what "natural children" means.)

[mark]

<(You might also like to check what "natural children" means.)>

Doesn't it mean "children of one's body", whether a marriage occured
beforehand? I believe that it means genetic paternity/maternity.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

Post by mark
<(You might also like to check what "natural children" means.)>
Doesn't it mean "children of one's body", whether a marriage occured
beforehand? I believe that it means genetic paternity/maternity.

"Natural child" is a polite way of describing a bastard, ie. an
illegitimate child


Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.heraldicmedia.com

[Gillian White]

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
"Natural child" is a polite way of describing a bastard, ie. an
illegitimate child

Because it is born in a state of nature, instead of a state of grace, or
words to that effect...

Gillian