A historical question about primogeniture

[olegrand]

Hello to all

I'm a professional writer currently working on a piece of fiction set in late Victorian England and I would like to be sure I have understood correctly the principle of primogeniture as applied to successions within a noble family. Specifically:

An English Lord is married but dies before he could have children. As I understood things, this would mean that his title and his entire fortune (estate, wealth etc.) would legally and automatically go to his male next-of-kin, even if this individual is a very remote cousin and does not belong to nobility. This heir would then become entitled and sole inheritor to everything. Is this correct or have I misunderstood something?

I thank you in advance.*
*

[des8]

The difference between the law and the custom of primogeniture, (which only applies to real property in cases of intestacy) is so involved that it is virtually impossible to respond here.
The strict law was that in the event of intestacy and the lack of a son the real estate was divided between any daughters.
And there were many times when if there was no direct male heir the title & property would pass to a daughter eg Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

If you are really interested in the question and don't want your work of fiction to be inaccurate you might find* "Primogeniture and Entail in England"
by*Zouheir Jamoussi an interesting read. Your local library might be able to get you a copy

[olegrand]

Thanks for the reply - I knew about the case of Queen Elizabeth and similar ones. Actually, my question did not pertain to the absence of male heirs but to the absence of children (be they sons or daughters). So, to simplify, here is the "case":

A young and recently-married Lord dies without having conceived ANY child - but leaving a mother and a wife behind him. Who would inherit his title, estate(s) and wealth?(If this is relevant, the story would take place in the 1890s).

[des8]

Well most titles will fall into abeyance if the holder does not have a legitimate son, unless the title has a remainder which enables it to pass to a daughter. Full information about peerages can be found in Debrett's
His estates and wealth would pass according to his will, unless he died intestate.
If he died intestate his property would pass according to the rules of intestacy contained in The Intestates' Estates act 1890 (of which I can't find a copy!)
I have found that the 1890 act provided that, where a man died totally intestate leaving no issue, his widow would take his entire estate if its value did not exceed £500, and that she would have a charge on his real and personal property for £500 if the value of the estate exceeded this sum.

[olegrand]

Well most titles will fall into abeyance if the holder does not have a legitimate son, unless the title has a remainder which enables it to pass to a daughter. Full information about peerages can be found in Debrett's
His estates and wealth would pass according to his will, unless he died intestate.
If he died intestate his property would pass according to the rules of intestacy contained in The Intestates' Estates act 1890 (of which I can't find a copy!)
I have found that the 1890 act provided that, where a man died totally intestate leaving no issue, his widow would take his entire estate if its value did not exceed £500, and that she would have a charge on his real and personal property for £500 if the value of the estate exceeded this sum.

OK; this is very helpful. I'm not a native English speaker - and even though I have no problem reading English novels, I don't think I could completely comprehend the linguistic and legal minutiae of reference works on the legal system, hence my current queries.*
*
In the story on which I'm working, the young Lord would die intestate and with no child at all - and no siblings either. And his estate and property would definitely exceed 500 pounds... so would this mean that (a) his widow would still be able to live comfortably and (b) nobody would actually inherit his title - or would it be passed to the closer male relative ?**

[des8]

£500 in 1890 is worth approx £65,000 today.
In some parts of England the widow would retain possession of the real estate until such time as she remarried, other times it would escheat to the crown or state

The title would fall into abeyance and would not be inherited.

And don't worry about not understanding.... not many (including me) do!