Hi,
The answer you are seeking is "no".
"A baronetcy is unique in two ways:
* it is an hereditary honor but is not a peerage and has never
entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords; and
* a baronet is styled 'Sir' but the baronetcy is not considered an
order of knighthood."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baronetcy
The title would not pass because there is no reason for it to pass.
The first son is still alive, and is not a "peerage", in other words,
there is really nothing he has to do or perform for the crown, such as
duties in the House of Lords. The title is honorable but is neither a
peer nor the Sovereign. In fact if he was not a baronet he would be a
commoner.
If he were a Baron, then there might be some issue of insanity
removing him from formal duty and having the title passed to a member
of the family so that duties could be performed/continued. As a Bart
however, the title would stay with him until death, and then his son
would recieve the title or it would die with him.
Links of Referance
Peerage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage
British Honous System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_honours_system
Keep in mind too that the title Baronetcy is strictly a British thing,
the rest of Europe doesn?t have the title, or really anything like it.
thanks,
webadept-ga |
Clarification of Answer by
webadept-ga
on
15 Dec 2005 08:09 PST
Hi,
I called a friend of mine last night to talk over your question, him
being in line for an Irish baronetcy. He pointed out that the
baronetcy is closer to a knighthood than a baron, so in your
storyline, the second son (the younger brother), would still not get
the title after committing the perfect murder. The baronetcy doesn't
pass to brothers, only to eldest son.
Now in his case (my friends) the Bart is his father's brother (my
friend's uncle), who has no sons (or daughters for that matter), so
they are appealing for special allowance to have the baronetcy passed
down to the eldest son of the brother, which at this point is still
very much in question as to whether it will pass down or die with the
uncle. It can not pass to the brother. Doesn't work like that.
thanks again, gave me a great reason to talk all night on gTalk to a
friend I've been meaning to call for some time.
webadept-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
horus777-ga
on
19 Dec 2005 12:33 PST
Hi, thanks for this, which Google only notified me of today, the 19th.
You have not really added much to what I know - if it's on wikipedia,
I am familiar with it. But mainly what your answer lacks is the meat,
that is, the answer to the main question: What legal procedures would
he have to go through? I was looking for a detailed, legalistic
answer.
|
Clarification of Answer by
webadept-ga
on
19 Dec 2005 13:52 PST
Hi,
Yes there have been some delays of late with the mail system. Sorry about that.
Anyway.. called back George and asked him the who/what/and where.
First Key Name is the Lord Lyon
=="There has been one other instance of a case appealed from Lyon
Court (1985 S.L.T. (Lyon Ct.) 6) to the Inner House (1985 I.H. 158)
and thence to the House of Lords (1986 H.L. 463). The case, Dunbar of
Kilconzie, brought against each other two half-brothers; one was older
than the other, but born illegitimate, but legitimated by marriage
afterwards. On the death of their father in 1953 or thereabouts, the
younger born-legitimate brother inherited the baronetcy. Then, in
1968, an act made effective in Scotland an act which had become
effective in England in the 1950s which removed the exclusion of
hereditary honors from the provisions of the Legitimacy Act of 1926
(16 & 17 Geo V c. 60). The presently legitimated older brother decided
that he was in fact the heir. Lyon dismissed his petition, he appealed
to the Court of Session which upheld, he appealed to the House of
Lords which upheld."==
Lord Lyon and his Jurisdiction
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/lordlyon.htm
And then, even mentioned in that paragraph is the Court of Session
=="The Court of Session, Scotland's supreme civil court, sits in
Parliament House in Edinburgh as a court of first instance and a court
of appeal. An appeal lies to the House of Lords. The origins of the
court can be traced to the early sixteenth century. The court
presently consists of judges who are designated "Senators of the
College of Justice" or "Lords of Council and Session". Each judge
takes the courtesy title of "Lord" or "Lady" followed by their surname
or a territorial title. The court is headed by the Lord President, the
second in rank being the Lord Justice Clerk."==
Court of Session
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/session/index.asp
From there the Petition would go to the House of Lords if they were
willing to hear it.
The process by the way is simply known as a Petition, but again the
second son would not be able to claim the title while the older son
was alive, though there may be some creative licence to see that he
could get it with the older one's death. I'm afraid he would only get
the lands and wealth to control, and not the title.
As for taking control of the estate because the brother is a lunatic
and selling acres for flamingos, the second brother would file an
Action in Probate Court.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/wills.htm
This would have nothing to do with the title, that is a completely separate issue.
thanks, and let me know if that still doesn't cover it.
webadept-ga
|
Clarification of Answer by
webadept-ga
on
19 Dec 2005 14:03 PST
Something else comes to mind with this as well, especially with the
broadness of creative license; The reason for the creation of the
baronetcy title to begin with was basically to get money for the
crown. The title doesn't wield any direct power or command, but it is
a title. I don't think it would be far fetched to anyone if the
younger brother, having already proved the insanity of his brother,
and through probate court took control of the estate, went before the
Lord Lyon, with Petition, and money, to ask for the removal of the
title from his brother to be given to him, so save the honor of the
crown and his family.
Pushing that direction with enough force would probably seen one of
two outcomes. Either the title would be removed altogether, or given
to the brother. With baronetcy you do have some leeway, which is
probably why you chose it in the first place. It would work much
better if the younger brother had something (even in the smoke and
mirrors reality of the gentile) that could possibly give him a
baronetcy of his own on his own merits, but not quite enough to really
get one. Extenuating circumstances, as it were.
webadept-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
horus777-ga
on
22 Dec 2005 03:43 PST
Hi,
I have gained from you the confirmation that it's unlikely the younger
son would be able to claim the title, but I am still lacking the
information about the legal procedures he would have to go through to
get his brother certified, or whatever, and obtain control of, at
least, the estate. The exact, detailed legal procedure including, I
would imagine, the legal Latin terms for the various stages, etc. - as
it was in 1925 - which may or may not be as it is today. For $100 I
really expect a LAWYER's answer - or a LAW HISTORIAN. You are giving
me generalities and, as you kindly give your links, you are obviously
providing info that is available on the web. Believe me, I spent a lot
of time searching the web before posting this question and offering to
pay for an answer. I found nothing on the web that said anything about
these matters IN 1925.
Let me be really clear - I need, step by step, a full explication of
everything that would have to be done, medically and legally, to
accomplish this guy's goal. What steps? With what proofs? In what
court? In what time frame? With what recourses of appeal? Etc. What a
lawyer would answer in 1925.
|
Clarification of Answer by
webadept-ga
on
22 Dec 2005 14:18 PST
Hi,
I'm sorry, that is not what you asked. You asked:
"For a novel set in 1925, I need to know whether it was possible for
primogeniture ever to be overturned in the inheritance of a baronetcy
on the grounds of insanity."
ANSWER : No, as explained above.
"In other words, can a younger son, upon their father's death, get his
elder brother declared mentally unfit and so inherit the title
himself? "
ANSWER : No, as explained above.
"Or could he at most only get control of the estate but not the title?
And what legal procedures would he have to go through?"
ANSWER : He could gain control of estate, but not title. The process
now, as in 1925 would be Probate Court. The procedure would be to file
an Action in Probate Court. Nothing would have changed between now or
then in this matter... As was very clearly explained above.
We are Researchers, not Lawyers, as the description at the bottom of
the page clearly states. You are now asking for information far beyond
the bounds of your original question which has been completely
answered. If you would like further information or research done as
you have described in your last Clarification, I would suggest posting
a new question.
Thank you.
webadept-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
horus777-ga
on
23 Dec 2005 02:15 PST
Hi, you say
Clarification of Answer by webadept-ga on 22 Dec 2005 14:18 PST
Hi,
I'm sorry, that is not what you asked. You asked:
"For a novel set in 1925, I need to know whether it was possible for
primogeniture ever to be overturned in the inheritance of a baronetcy
on the grounds of insanity."
ANSWER : No, as explained above.
"In other words, can a younger son, upon their father's death, get his
elder brother declared mentally unfit and so inherit the title
himself? "
ANSWER : No, as explained above.
"Or could he at most only get control of the estate but not the title?
And what legal procedures would he have to go through?"
ANSWER : He could gain control of estate, but not title. The process
now, as in 1925 would be Probate Court. The procedure would be to file
an Action in Probate Court. Nothing would have changed between now or
then in this matter... As was very clearly explained above.
THESE "THREE" ARE OBVIOUSLY ONE. There was ALWAYS really just the one
question, though I phrased it several ways in order to be clear. I
refer you also to my first "request for answer clarification:"
Hi, thanks for this, which Google only notified me of today, the 19th.
You have not really added much to what I know - if it's on wikipedia,
I am familiar with it. But mainly what your answer lacks is the meat,
that is, the answer to the main question: What legal procedures would
he have to go through? I was looking for a detailed, legalistic
answer.
Here I state very explicitly that I wanted a "detailed, legalistic
answer" If you felt yourself unqualified to provide that, I wish you
had saved your time.
|
