Talk:Baron Brabourne

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Courtesey title for 8th Baron's son?

Ok. So, Lord Romsey is a subsiduary title of Earl Mountbatten of Burma, so was used by the Countess's heir, who is now the 8th Baron Brabourne.

Does this courtesy title now devolve on the 8th Baron's heir apparent, (Hon. Nicholas Knatchbull)? Articles have been edited so.

If so what rules are being followed here? I didn't know that courtesy titles 'skipped' a generation if the real heir apparent has a real title already. Courtesy title doesn't seem to mention this case. Morwen - Talk 21:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the wrong rules, and they don't. Someone's confused. Proteus (Talk) 18:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding, the barony of Brabourne will not "eventually merge" with that of the earldom, as suggested in a passage in the main text. They will simply be held by the same person. When the current holder of the barony succeeds his mother in due course, he will be the 3rd Earl Mounbatten of Burma and 8th Baron Brabourne. Should he die without any male issue but has a daughter instead (unlikely in the present case as he has a son and two daughters), the earldom will pass to the daughter but the barony will be inherited by the next closest male relative. This is because the earldom was created with a special remainder "to every...daughter lawfully begotten... successively in order of seniority of age and priority of birth and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten" whereas the barony, as far as I know, follows the male primogeniture rules. I think this is the position now. I may have misunderstood.---Daniel Oh

Yes, you have, I'm afraid. The remainder you've quoted (which is indeed the remainder of the Earldom) only allows female succession in the first generation: it can pass to the 1st Earl's daughters, but only the heirs male of those daughters. It will be held by the heirs male of the 2nd Countess until such point (if any) as her heirs male run out, at which point it would be inherited by the heir male of the 2nd Countess's sister. It can never be inherited by a daughter of the 2nd Countess, or a daughter of one of her sons, etc. It's not the same remainder as heirs general. Secondly, "merge with title X" simply means "be held by the same person as title X". It doesn't imply perpetual union of the peerages. Proteus (Talk) 13:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]