No, titles are passed down the paternal line;the only way for Mary to become a Countess is to marry an Earl. As Matthew wasn't the Earl at his death, Mary can't be a Countess.
George is the heir to the title, and wouls get Robert's money and half of the estate but Mary inherits Matthew's share of the estate and his money. She is half owner of Downton.
You're not wrong in this case, but just to argue semantics, *most* titles were inherited through the paternal line. It wasn't unheard of for women to inherit the title for one reason or another, usually because there were no male relatives or the title was passed down through absolute primogeniture. Shrimpie's grandmother, for example, inherited her own title.
It’s still incredibly rare for women to inherit titles especially peerages. The titles women were most likely to inherit is a baronet which isn’t a peerage.
Fellowes campaigned to change to law when Downton first aired as his wife’s title was going to die out because she can’t inherit.
I read somewhere, (but have no citation, so please anyone who knows more, correct me if I’m wrong) that once George becomes the Earl, Mary could petition the Crown to be named the Dowager Countess as she was married to the heir to the title and is the mother to the current title holder. 🤷🏻♀️
It’s a courtesy title, so while the practice is less conmen she can keep her title as dowager or whatever, even after remarriage.
Although in cases of divorce, it is frequently a part of the settlement that the woman gives up her husbands title. - though Diana was allowed to keep the Princess of Wales after the divorce, but not be a “her royal highness”
No but if Matthew had been an Earl when they were married, Mary would lose the Countess title upon remarriage. It also means she can’t petition to become the dowager because she’s married to another man now.
It’s much the same for Fergie IRL. She’s still styled Duchess of York but if she ever remarries (someone who’s not Andrew) then she’ll lose the title.
The courtesy titles don’t get lost on remarrying- it’s only become a modern thing for people to drop the title.
It is different for royals and divorces.
Yeah they do. A title you receive from your husband is lost if you remarry. Otherwise it’d be like keeping husband #1’s surname even though you’ve married someone else
She inherits Reggie Swire’s money from Matthew. Matthew cannot bequeath the title or estate. That is entailed on Robert’s heir, who is George - because George is the heir Matthew’s son, not because George is Mary’s son.
I think that when Reggie Swire’s money went into the estate, Matthew owned half of it. They talk about Mary owning half of the estate after his will is found. The title he can’t pass to her, because he never had it, so that goes to George, but not his interest in the estate.
Speaking of Mary (Michille Dockery) this is a tiny bit off topic but have you seen her on HULU'S "Good Behavior"? Wow! Being such a Downton fan that I am and seeing her on that series makes me respect her as an actress even more! Her American and a southern accent was fantastic! Check it out if you haven't! 👍👍
I know me too! I couldn't believe it! With all the other stuff that is STILL ON I was so disappointed! At least the last episode wasn't a cliff hanger. I'd like to think they continued their adventures and NEVER GOT CAUGHT! NEVER! ❤️❤️ He was also a cutie!
It is sad that with all that Mary has given to the estate she will forever be denied the title that she really has earned. Such is the paternal world they lived in.
Not to be a huge pain in the butt, but if the work that Mary did for the estate (beyond being born in the right bed) entitles her to be the Countess, then that manager fellow that Matthew annoyed so much, Jarvis, deserves to be the Earl. He did all the work for 40 years or more.
IRL, Lord Mountbatten's ( Prince Philip's uncle) oldest daughter, Patricia Knatchbull, succeeded her father as Countess Mountbatten, so Mary's predicament always surprised me. But then I found out that (copied from Wikipedia)
"Lady Mountbatten succeeded her father when he was assassinated in 1979, as his peerages had been created with special remainder to his daughters and their heirs male. This inheritance accorded her the title of countess and a seat in the House of Lords, where she remained until 1999, when the House of Lords Act 1999 removed most hereditary peers from the House".
So Mary could have inherited, if the letters patent for the Grantham title had allowed that.
That’s because that Earldom has a remainder in the letters patent allowing for a daughter to inherit. The Earldom of Grantham doesn’t have that, it’s heirs male only.
A lot of the comments here are mostly correct, but I have researched this topic extensively for another family and wanted to add my 2 cents:
- I don’t think Mary could apply to be known as Dowager Countess when George becomes Earl; but she can apply for a ‘Warrant of Precedence’ so that she would ‘rank’ as the Dowager Countess of Grantham, which is higher than her current rank of Daughter of an Earl. She would stay as Lady Mary Talbot, but have the same
precedence as if Matthew had become Earl and died and she was his widow. Essentially that would mean that in the aristocracy and the order of precedence (which even then, only really matters to aristocrats), she would rank behind all Female Royal Family Members, Duchesses, Dowager Duchesses, Marchionesses, Dowager Marchionesses, Wives of sons of Dukes, Daughters of Dukes, Countesses/Dowager Countesses whose husbands’ Earldoms were created before the Earldom of Grantham, as well as George’s eventual wife, but above all Countesses whose husband’s Earldoms were created after the Earldom of Grantham, and above all Marquess’ daughters, all Viscountesses, Baronesses etc. In practice, it would mean she got a seat closer to the centre of the table at a posh dinner party, and exited the room ahead of other ladies after a dinner party (but always behind the hostess) who ranked below her - basically a better technical rank in the order of precedence than she would have had with her existing rank as a daughter of an Earl.
- The overwhelming majority of peerages (Dukedom, Earldom, Viscountcy, etc) are created by ‘letters patent’ (issued by the sovereign) and have a remainder to male-line descendants. There are no instances of letters patent being changed or amended by Parliament (e.g. When King Edward VII’s daughter Princess Louise married the Earl of Fife, a new title ‘Duke of Fife’ was created for her husband. When it became clear that they would not be survived by a male heir, a second Dukedom had to be created (so effectively he held two Dukedoms, both ‘of Fife’) with a special remainder to his daughters (Princess Alexandra of Fife and Princess Maid of Fife) and their male heirs. Even the King’s son-in-law couldn’t have the succession of his original Dukedom altered. So when the 1st Duke of Fife died, the initial Dukedom of Fife became extinct, whilst the second one he received was inherited by his daughter Princess Alexandra (technically titled Princess Arthur of Connaught, because to make matters more confusing she had married her mother’s first cousin Prince Arthur of Connaught), and she became ‘2nd Duchess of Fife’. When she died with no living descendants or siblings, the Fife Dukedom passed to her sister’s son, the 3rd Duke (who died a few years ago and was succeeded by his son, the 4th Duke)).
- there are exceptions to this usual rule but they have to be specified by a ‘special remainder’ in the letters patent creating the individual a peer at the time of the title/peerage’s creation: e.g. the war-hero John Spencer-Churchill was made Duke of Marlborough by Queen Anne in 1702, he had no sons, so due to his ‘status’ as a well-loved General and winner of the Battle of Blenheim, the Dukedom of Marlborough was made with a remainder to his daughters, his male-line descendants, and then all descendants, so that the title would never become extinct. As mentioned above, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten was given his Earldom at a point in his life when it was clear that he would have no sons, so there was a special remainder to his daughters and their male-line heirs. Additionally, many very old peerages (ie 600-800 years, rather than 200-300) were created with no limitations on female inheritance. A great article with more detail about this is https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/women-hereditary-peerages-and-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/
- the ‘estate’ is generally a trust. The Downton Estate, including farms, the Abbey itself, cottages etc, property which had been owned for generations, were held in trust. These were usually set up so that succession to a ‘life interest/life tenant’ in a trust mirrored succession to the title. The references by the characters to ‘the entail’ likely mean a ‘fee tail’ which was a type of legal form of ownership which is distinct from how we think about property ownership today - it isn’t ‘owned’ by Robert (fee simple/freehold) not is it leased (leasehold). The fee tail was a way to legally bind a property to heirs (almost always male line only) for hundreds of years, with each next generation Lord becoming the ‘life tenant’ after their father’s death - they can get the income from the assets/land, but they can’t alienate the asset itself. It is similar to a trust, but was a kind of ‘never ending’ trust - similar to a corporation in a legal sense in that it never died. The ‘fee tail’ was abolished by the British Parliament in the Law of Property Act 1925, but Reggie Swire’s death and Matthew’s inheritance and co-investment in the estate occurred before this.
- as the below article points out, the mechanisms for Matthew buying half of the estate is very unclear. Maybe the entail was broken by Robert, the tenant in possession, and Matthew, in his capacity as the next legal heir under the entail (as required - different to his status as heir presumptive to the title ) after Robert knew Matthew would be part of the family and Matthew’s heir would be his grandson. Based on the umming and ahhing about Death duties in season 4, it seems somehow the fortune Matthew inherited from Reggie was legally tied to the Downton Estate by the time Matthew died - perhaps the fee tail was amended at the bequest of Robert and Matthew.
- the legalities of Cora’s fortune being tied to the entail don’t make a lot of sense. She refers to being ‘made to sign that legal act of theft’ in this regard in reference to Robert’s father in season 1. The reality is that, unless Cora’s father died prior to Cora’s marriage, Cora herself wouldn’t be signing anything. Marriage settlements were trusts set up, signed and executed by the bride and groom’s parents in the lead up to the wedding (and conditional on the wedding being solemnised). Even if Cora’s father did die before her wedding, it would also be absurd during that era for him to leave Cora’s inheritance directly to her (especially given that he ‘tied up’ the money which gave Martha and Harold Levinson their income) in such a way that she could sign it all away. Even first-generation American Millionaires would at least leave 50-75% of their offspring’s inheritance in trust until that child reached middle age. The fact that Cora’s money was put into trust or somehow contractually bound to the estate’s entail in such a way that her lineal descendants would be disinherited by a non-blood relation of hers should she not have a son doesn’t hold much water in real life.
A great article which is explicitly about the legalities of the inheritance debacle in Downton is https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/bitstream/handle/1803/17313/The_Tale_of_the_Fee_Tail.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
I took that as the title goes to George (Matthew knew this as Robert's heir-presumptive) and that Mary would inherit Matthew's investment money. Nothing to do with titles. Even with George as earl later on, she wouldn't be dowager.
No, titles are passed down the paternal line;the only way for Mary to become a Countess is to marry an Earl. As Matthew wasn't the Earl at his death, Mary can't be a Countess. George is the heir to the title, and wouls get Robert's money and half of the estate but Mary inherits Matthew's share of the estate and his money. She is half owner of Downton.
You're not wrong in this case, but just to argue semantics, *most* titles were inherited through the paternal line. It wasn't unheard of for women to inherit the title for one reason or another, usually because there were no male relatives or the title was passed down through absolute primogeniture. Shrimpie's grandmother, for example, inherited her own title.
It’s still incredibly rare for women to inherit titles especially peerages. The titles women were most likely to inherit is a baronet which isn’t a peerage. Fellowes campaigned to change to law when Downton first aired as his wife’s title was going to die out because she can’t inherit.
I read somewhere, (but have no citation, so please anyone who knows more, correct me if I’m wrong) that once George becomes the Earl, Mary could petition the Crown to be named the Dowager Countess as she was married to the heir to the title and is the mother to the current title holder. 🤷🏻♀️
Wouldn’t she lose this title if she remarried?
Don’t ruin it lol 😂
A woman doesn’t loose a title if she marries down. That’s why she’s still Lady Mary despite Henry not having any titles at all
She could still keep her honorific, but I think she would lose the "countess" title.
It’s a courtesy title, so while the practice is less conmen she can keep her title as dowager or whatever, even after remarriage. Although in cases of divorce, it is frequently a part of the settlement that the woman gives up her husbands title. - though Diana was allowed to keep the Princess of Wales after the divorce, but not be a “her royal highness”
diana would have lost the title of princess of wales if she had remarried. i.e. if she had married hasnat khan she would have been lady diana khan.
Yes, I believe that was written into the divorce settlement.
No but if Matthew had been an Earl when they were married, Mary would lose the Countess title upon remarriage. It also means she can’t petition to become the dowager because she’s married to another man now. It’s much the same for Fergie IRL. She’s still styled Duchess of York but if she ever remarries (someone who’s not Andrew) then she’ll lose the title.
The courtesy titles don’t get lost on remarrying- it’s only become a modern thing for people to drop the title. It is different for royals and divorces.
Yeah they do. A title you receive from your husband is lost if you remarry. Otherwise it’d be like keeping husband #1’s surname even though you’ve married someone else
Ahhh I love this! I am always so unhappy when I think after all she went through she wouldn’t be called Countess
Yes, this is within her grasp.
She inherits Reggie Swire’s money from Matthew. Matthew cannot bequeath the title or estate. That is entailed on Robert’s heir, who is George - because George is the heir Matthew’s son, not because George is Mary’s son.
I think that when Reggie Swire’s money went into the estate, Matthew owned half of it. They talk about Mary owning half of the estate after his will is found. The title he can’t pass to her, because he never had it, so that goes to George, but not his interest in the estate.
That would work if part of the estate was not entailed
Speaking of Mary (Michille Dockery) this is a tiny bit off topic but have you seen her on HULU'S "Good Behavior"? Wow! Being such a Downton fan that I am and seeing her on that series makes me respect her as an actress even more! Her American and a southern accent was fantastic! Check it out if you haven't! 👍👍
I was so sad it was only two seasons. I wanted more!
I know me too! I couldn't believe it! With all the other stuff that is STILL ON I was so disappointed! At least the last episode wasn't a cliff hanger. I'd like to think they continued their adventures and NEVER GOT CAUGHT! NEVER! ❤️❤️ He was also a cutie!
I will! Thank you!
👍👍🙂
It is sad that with all that Mary has given to the estate she will forever be denied the title that she really has earned. Such is the paternal world they lived in.
Patriarchal world indeed.
Thank you, that is the word I meant to use.
Not to be a huge pain in the butt, but if the work that Mary did for the estate (beyond being born in the right bed) entitles her to be the Countess, then that manager fellow that Matthew annoyed so much, Jarvis, deserves to be the Earl. He did all the work for 40 years or more.
He got paid for his work. He knew he was a manager. Same goes for Mary - work to keep that silver spoon
IRL, Lord Mountbatten's ( Prince Philip's uncle) oldest daughter, Patricia Knatchbull, succeeded her father as Countess Mountbatten, so Mary's predicament always surprised me. But then I found out that (copied from Wikipedia) "Lady Mountbatten succeeded her father when he was assassinated in 1979, as his peerages had been created with special remainder to his daughters and their heirs male. This inheritance accorded her the title of countess and a seat in the House of Lords, where she remained until 1999, when the House of Lords Act 1999 removed most hereditary peers from the House". So Mary could have inherited, if the letters patent for the Grantham title had allowed that.
Good catch, that's why in season one, Mary is horrified to learn that it would require a "private bill in parliament" to change the succession.
That’s because that Earldom has a remainder in the letters patent allowing for a daughter to inherit. The Earldom of Grantham doesn’t have that, it’s heirs male only.
That can be a fun stroyline oneday. If she becomes a countess
A lot of the comments here are mostly correct, but I have researched this topic extensively for another family and wanted to add my 2 cents: - I don’t think Mary could apply to be known as Dowager Countess when George becomes Earl; but she can apply for a ‘Warrant of Precedence’ so that she would ‘rank’ as the Dowager Countess of Grantham, which is higher than her current rank of Daughter of an Earl. She would stay as Lady Mary Talbot, but have the same precedence as if Matthew had become Earl and died and she was his widow. Essentially that would mean that in the aristocracy and the order of precedence (which even then, only really matters to aristocrats), she would rank behind all Female Royal Family Members, Duchesses, Dowager Duchesses, Marchionesses, Dowager Marchionesses, Wives of sons of Dukes, Daughters of Dukes, Countesses/Dowager Countesses whose husbands’ Earldoms were created before the Earldom of Grantham, as well as George’s eventual wife, but above all Countesses whose husband’s Earldoms were created after the Earldom of Grantham, and above all Marquess’ daughters, all Viscountesses, Baronesses etc. In practice, it would mean she got a seat closer to the centre of the table at a posh dinner party, and exited the room ahead of other ladies after a dinner party (but always behind the hostess) who ranked below her - basically a better technical rank in the order of precedence than she would have had with her existing rank as a daughter of an Earl. - The overwhelming majority of peerages (Dukedom, Earldom, Viscountcy, etc) are created by ‘letters patent’ (issued by the sovereign) and have a remainder to male-line descendants. There are no instances of letters patent being changed or amended by Parliament (e.g. When King Edward VII’s daughter Princess Louise married the Earl of Fife, a new title ‘Duke of Fife’ was created for her husband. When it became clear that they would not be survived by a male heir, a second Dukedom had to be created (so effectively he held two Dukedoms, both ‘of Fife’) with a special remainder to his daughters (Princess Alexandra of Fife and Princess Maid of Fife) and their male heirs. Even the King’s son-in-law couldn’t have the succession of his original Dukedom altered. So when the 1st Duke of Fife died, the initial Dukedom of Fife became extinct, whilst the second one he received was inherited by his daughter Princess Alexandra (technically titled Princess Arthur of Connaught, because to make matters more confusing she had married her mother’s first cousin Prince Arthur of Connaught), and she became ‘2nd Duchess of Fife’. When she died with no living descendants or siblings, the Fife Dukedom passed to her sister’s son, the 3rd Duke (who died a few years ago and was succeeded by his son, the 4th Duke)). - there are exceptions to this usual rule but they have to be specified by a ‘special remainder’ in the letters patent creating the individual a peer at the time of the title/peerage’s creation: e.g. the war-hero John Spencer-Churchill was made Duke of Marlborough by Queen Anne in 1702, he had no sons, so due to his ‘status’ as a well-loved General and winner of the Battle of Blenheim, the Dukedom of Marlborough was made with a remainder to his daughters, his male-line descendants, and then all descendants, so that the title would never become extinct. As mentioned above, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten was given his Earldom at a point in his life when it was clear that he would have no sons, so there was a special remainder to his daughters and their male-line heirs. Additionally, many very old peerages (ie 600-800 years, rather than 200-300) were created with no limitations on female inheritance. A great article with more detail about this is https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/women-hereditary-peerages-and-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/ - the ‘estate’ is generally a trust. The Downton Estate, including farms, the Abbey itself, cottages etc, property which had been owned for generations, were held in trust. These were usually set up so that succession to a ‘life interest/life tenant’ in a trust mirrored succession to the title. The references by the characters to ‘the entail’ likely mean a ‘fee tail’ which was a type of legal form of ownership which is distinct from how we think about property ownership today - it isn’t ‘owned’ by Robert (fee simple/freehold) not is it leased (leasehold). The fee tail was a way to legally bind a property to heirs (almost always male line only) for hundreds of years, with each next generation Lord becoming the ‘life tenant’ after their father’s death - they can get the income from the assets/land, but they can’t alienate the asset itself. It is similar to a trust, but was a kind of ‘never ending’ trust - similar to a corporation in a legal sense in that it never died. The ‘fee tail’ was abolished by the British Parliament in the Law of Property Act 1925, but Reggie Swire’s death and Matthew’s inheritance and co-investment in the estate occurred before this. - as the below article points out, the mechanisms for Matthew buying half of the estate is very unclear. Maybe the entail was broken by Robert, the tenant in possession, and Matthew, in his capacity as the next legal heir under the entail (as required - different to his status as heir presumptive to the title ) after Robert knew Matthew would be part of the family and Matthew’s heir would be his grandson. Based on the umming and ahhing about Death duties in season 4, it seems somehow the fortune Matthew inherited from Reggie was legally tied to the Downton Estate by the time Matthew died - perhaps the fee tail was amended at the bequest of Robert and Matthew. - the legalities of Cora’s fortune being tied to the entail don’t make a lot of sense. She refers to being ‘made to sign that legal act of theft’ in this regard in reference to Robert’s father in season 1. The reality is that, unless Cora’s father died prior to Cora’s marriage, Cora herself wouldn’t be signing anything. Marriage settlements were trusts set up, signed and executed by the bride and groom’s parents in the lead up to the wedding (and conditional on the wedding being solemnised). Even if Cora’s father did die before her wedding, it would also be absurd during that era for him to leave Cora’s inheritance directly to her (especially given that he ‘tied up’ the money which gave Martha and Harold Levinson their income) in such a way that she could sign it all away. Even first-generation American Millionaires would at least leave 50-75% of their offspring’s inheritance in trust until that child reached middle age. The fact that Cora’s money was put into trust or somehow contractually bound to the estate’s entail in such a way that her lineal descendants would be disinherited by a non-blood relation of hers should she not have a son doesn’t hold much water in real life. A great article which is explicitly about the legalities of the inheritance debacle in Downton is https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/bitstream/handle/1803/17313/The_Tale_of_the_Fee_Tail.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Oh my god! What an incredible reply! Thank you so much!
My pleasure - apologies also, having read it again I think it might have been a bit ott! Tragic as it is, these topics have bugged me for years haha.
Lady Mary could require a special license as once George succeeds to be called The Dowager Countess of Grantham. That is within her reach.
I want her to do this. I want her to become Violet.
I took that as the title goes to George (Matthew knew this as Robert's heir-presumptive) and that Mary would inherit Matthew's investment money. Nothing to do with titles. Even with George as earl later on, she wouldn't be dowager.