BRITISH THRONE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 115, 12 November 1930, Page 17

BRITISH THRONE

QUESTION OF SUCCESSION

LAW OF ABEYANCE

The birth of Princess Margaret has raised the question whether iv the event of tho ultimate succession of the Duke of York to the Throne, would his two daughters, if no brothor was born (o them, become equal and joint heiresses to the Crown of England. It is true that when a peer "with remainder to heirs genernl" dies leaving several daughteis but no sou they all rank equally and the peerage goes into "abeyance" between thorn. But the Crowu. is not a pceiage, and its descent is governed by different rules. Moreover, although th; House of Lords, in determining peerage claims, acts on the assumption that pcciagc law has never varied from the earliest times, this is well known to historians to be a mere legal fiction. In fact, the nature of peerage and consequently the law governing it have varied very greatly; and in particular the law of abeyance was not established until about three hundred years ago, writes Dcrniot Morrah in the "Daily Mail." A slight inquiry into its history will show why it cannot be held to apply to the Crown. In the. first place, there has never yet been a legal decision applying the principle of abeyance to a^iy peerage except a barony. Now if ■rfc go back to tho beginning of barony, in the first two centuries after tho Norman Conquest, we shall find that the status of a baron involved three things—(l) tenure of land; (2) official duties; (3) a title. The duties were at first of chief importance. They involved' a large measure of government of his tenants, and tho lesponsibility for supplying and commanding a contingent of troops when the King went to.war. When the baron died the fust essential was that his duties should bo carried on.1.. If he loft sons the matter was simple; the eldest took tho'land 2}nd the title and performed the duties to the King. If he left only daughters, it was still> essential that the command of tho military contingent and the duty of presiding in. the feudal court should devolve upon a single person. So tho eldest daughter took the lauds and her husband bore the titlo and did the work. > But when the feudal system began to break up, the sheriff and tho Justices of the Assize ousting the barons' courts, and a money payment taking the place of their military service, the urgent necessity for maintaining the unity of the barony disappeared. Consequently, in questions of succession, the emphasis shifted from, the duties to the property. If there were sons the custom of primogeniture was now."*sufficiently strong to secure the whole for tho eldest; but the succession of daughters, being much less usual, was less hidebound; and the new custom was able to grow up, where there were only heiresses, of dividing the lands between them. The title followed the lands; and if the lands were divided it went into abeyance. When the title, rather than tho lands, emerged as the main essential -of peerage, abeyance survived as tho general rule. Now, the old threefold combination of property, duties, and title obviously applied to the Crown as well as to a baiony. The, old rule of .'succession is therefore logically applicable to the .Crown. But when barons lost their duties the King increased rather than diminished his; and consequently there is no lational ground for supposing the jChange of the custom in Succession to applyhere. The King, unlike a peer, is primarily an officer with duties to perform, and only, Secondarily a titled and propertied personage. His duties can neither be divided, like propcity, nor go into abeyance like U title; and so, like a baron of the original type, ho must still have a single successor. So if he has only daughters to succeed, tho oldest of them will'ho Queen.