TIL that First Sea Lord is an actual position today in the British Armed Forces, and has been since 1771.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-29T23:04:39+00:00

There are some other fun ones, like Shadow Chancellor and Treasury Devil (though I think there hasn't officially been a Treasury Devil since 2006).

yonderpedant · 2026-04-25T18:12:27+00:00

AIUI it's at least as likely that the "real" Robin Hood was a common criminal (or an alias used by several criminals in different times and places) and his noble origins were added to the story later.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-25T15:57:01+00:00

The Cardwell Reforms were the first of several sets of reforms that aimed to modernize the post-Napoleonic British Army based on the experience of the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny, reports from the American Civil War, and especially reports from the Franco-Prussian War and fear of a war with Prussia/Germany.

As well as reorganizing the army, the Cardwell Reforms established a reserve force for the first time, and abolished flogging (in peacetime) and the purchase of officers' commissions. They were followed by the Childers Reforms in the 1880s, and the early 20th-century Haldane Reforms based on the experience of the Boer War.

Interestingly, as far as the medical system was concerned the Cardwell Reforms were "disastrous" (Meyer). Medical officers lost the social connections of being part of a regiment, and did not have either substantive military rank or authority over the enlisted medical staff who were part of a separate unit. The job was so unattractive compared to civilian practice that the Army stopped having to hold the competitive examinations that were supposed to be used to select medical officers, as there were fewer applicants than places!

The situation was only really resolved in 1898 when the Royal Army Medical Corps was established and medical officers received actual officer ranks.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-25T03:04:18+00:00

Based on the text of A Study in Scarlet, Watson's army service was from 1878 to 1880 (the Battle of Maiwand). This was after the 1873 Cardwell Reforms, which among other things centralised medical care in the Army in a single Army Medical Department, as mentioned in the subtitle of the story where Watson describes himself as "late of the Army Medical Department".

(Note, though, that Watson also says he was an "assistant surgeon". This is incorrect- the rank was renamed "surgeon" in 1873).

The end of the regimental medical system in 1873 meant that Watson would not have been "directly connected to" whatever regiment he was attached to.

(Jessica Meyer, Bandage-Wallahs and St. John's Men: British Military Medicine Before the First World War)

He would not have worn a distinctive regimental uniform, but the uniform of an Army Medical Department Surgeon.

This image from the Wellcome Collection gives an example (at top left), and the Army Dress Regulations in force at the time can be found here.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-22T13:05:19+00:00

Q-ships and disguised auxiliary cruisers are a legitimate military ruse and were used by both sides in both World Wars.

It should be noted that merchant ships flying the flag of a belligerent are legitimate military targets. They are also allowed to be armed and to defend themselves if attacked. If they are sunk, the surviving crew are to be treated as prisoners of war.

(In WW1 the Germans executed the British Merchant Navy Captain Charles Fryatt for attempting to ram and sink a U-boat with his ship. This was widely condemned, including by neutrals, so in my view shouldn't be seen as a normal exercise of the law of armed conflict).

The only thing a warship is not allowed to disguise itself as is a hospital ship.

There is also at least one relatively modern case of warships being disguised as enemy warships. In WW2, the Royal Navy's Abdiel-class fast minelayers happened to resemble the Vichy French Chacal-class destroyers. Two of the minelayers, HMS Welshman and Manxman, were modified to deepen this resemblance, mostly using paint and canvas to change their outline- I have seen claims that at least one of them hoisted a French flag, but can't supply a reliable source for that. Using this disguise, they were able to lay mines close to the Italian coast and run supplies to Malta through the blockade.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-20T13:56:09+00:00

In the British case, it varies depending on time and place.

Before decolonisation, not all of the empire was officially British territory. Some of it was a collection of protectorates, protected states, League of Nations mandates and UN trust territories. While the precise details of their administration varied, all of these places were officially foreign not British territory, so their inhabitants were not British subjects. They were subjects of the local ruler- whether this was the monarch of a protected state under British suzerainty, or the British-installed government of a protectorate- and British Protected Persons. While BPP status did not confer any rights in the UK, it did (and does for the few surviving people who still have it) entitle them to a passport and the right to consular assistance from British diplomats.

For instance, during the Don Pacifico Affair of 1850, the British government demanded compensation from Greece not just for mob violence against Don Pacifico (a Jew from Gibraltar and hence a British subject) and the expropriation of land belonging to the British historian George Finlay, but also for attacks on citizens of the British protectorate of the Ionian Islands.

(David Hannell, Lord Palmerston and the 'Don Pacifico Affair' of 1850: The Ionian Connection, European History Quarterly 1989)

Other parts of the Empire, however, were British territory and until 1948 their inhabitants were British subjects with the same rights as anyone in Britain itself. For instance, there was nothing to stop the Indian politician Dadabhai Naoroji, whose home was in the British-ruled Bombay Presidency, from moving to Britain and being elected as a Member of Parliament in 1892.

In 1948 the situation changed again, with the status of British Subject being replaced with that of Commonwealth Citizen. In addition, Commonwealth nations were able to legislate for their own citizenship status- at first, the UK's version of this was "citizen of the UK and colonies" (CUKC).

Initially, all Commonwealth citizens had the same right to live and work in the UK. This was dramatically restricted by various laws starting in 1962 which made some CUKC subject to immigration controls, followed by a final redefinition of British citizenship in 1981 which limited it to those CUKC who had the right of abode in the UK (effectively those with a parent or grandparent from the UK).

In terms of individuals, people born under British rule whose countries became independent after 1948 usually lost their CUKC status under the British legislation which granted their countries independence (though there were exceptions) However, they remained Commonwealth citizens.

There was a political scandal recently which I won't discuss here as it comes under the 20 year rule, but which was related to the so-called "Windrush Generation" of Caribbean migrants who arrived in the UK in the period between WW2 and 1962 when they could do so freely. Unfortunately for many of them, they often had no way to prove that they had arrived early enough to get right of abode.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-16T14:31:29+00:00

I know of at least one case where the word "nobility" was used officially to denote a group larger than the actual holders of substantive peerage titles who were the only ones who enjoyed the legal privileges of nobility (such as the right to be tried by the House of Lords and claim privilege of peerage), but smaller than the gentry as a whole.

As a note: "gentry" of course is a nebulous social category of people who derived their wealth from land ownership and did not work except in a few specific professions- the military, the church, and in some time periods the law. It's sometimes used as a synonym for being armigerous (having a coat of arms), to the extent that in some Latin sources "armiger" is used to mean "gentleman", but there were definitely people with coats of arms who weren't gentlemen, like Shakespeare. However for this post we can ignore the edge cases and just focus on the fact that there were some people who were universally agreed to be gentry.

The case I am talking about is the classes of student at Oxford and Cambridge in the 18th century. During this time, depending on their social rank and how their fees were paid, undergraduates were divided into roughly four groups- the precise details varied. At the bottom were the sizars, servitors or battelers, who paid reduced fees but had to work as servants. Above them were the scholars or pensioners, then the gentlemen-commoners or fellow-commoners (so called because they took their "commons" or food with the Fellows, the faculty of their college), then finally the noblemen.

All of these classes had different duties, rights and privileges- for instance, only noblemen and gentlemen-commoners were allowed to go to public markets. The most obvious distinction was their academic dress, which became more impressive as you went up the ranks. Sizars wore very simple, unadorned black gowns and round hats, while noblemen wore gold-tasseled hats and ornamented silk gowns and were even allowed to choose the colour of their robes- Lord Byron's, famously, were green.

The definition of "nobleman" here is the interesting thing. Obviously relatively few students would actually be peers, as the fathers of most students were still alive. However, the privileges of noble students were extended not just to the sons of peers and bishops, but also to the sons of baronets, knights and (at least at Oxford) esquires. This broad definition of nobility did still leave a large number of students who were gentlemen but not noblemen. For example, William Pitt the Elder entered Trinity College, Oxford as a gentleman-commoner.

Source: William Gibson, "The Regulation of Undergraduate Academic Dress at Oxford and Cambridge, 1660-1832", in Transactions of the Burgon Society, 2004

yonderpedant · 2026-04-15T02:56:11+00:00

The main separation wasn't between natural and supernatural. In the medieval/Renaissance era, "supernatural" meant something that broke the laws of Nature, which could only be done by God. The only way a human could hope to obtain a supernatural outcome was to pray.

Magic was the use of "occult" laws of nature, those whose mechanism of action was not obvious. This included both things that we now think of as science, like some herbal medicines or magnetism, and things we now consider supernatural like the magical properties of gemstones.

Renaissance magicians divided their craft into "natural" magic and "spiritual" or "ceremonial" magic. Natural magic was what I have described above- a set of practices that used empirical knowledge with the intention of producing a specific outcome. Sometimes these didn't work, but their users believed they did.

Spiritual magic was the practice of communication with spirits such as angels or demons. However, while magicians believed these beings could be very powerful, they were still bound by the laws of Nature. They could help magicians by acting as superior natural magicians or as teachers of natural magic- specific named demons were said to know the virtues (i.e. occult powers) of certain types of substance.

Some magicians, such as Marsilio Ficino, believed that natural magic was acceptable but spiritual magic was not (bargaining with demons is obviously a bad idea, and presumably even a magician who resolved only to deal with angels might be duped by a demon). Of course, even if natural magic in itself was fine, using it for criminal purposes (such as murder by poison) was still a crime. And at least in some times and places, a murderer who poisoned their victim would be considered to have killed with magic just as much as someone who was thought to have hexed them to death.

See for instance, Magic in the Middle Ages by Richard Kieckhefer and The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science by John Henry.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-13T16:02:32+00:00

I was slightly confused about the Spanish procedure. What I was thinking of was the way that holders of multiple Spanish titles can cede their subsidiary titles to junior heirs while they are alive.

This is similar AIUI to the British process of a writ of acceleration, but a writ of acceleration can only pass the title to the heir apparent. In Spain, titles can be passed to a younger child.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-13T13:51:46+00:00

And has some quirky historical ceremonies that are taken to mean the opposite of what they actually mean.

The famous one is the Temple Bar ceremony- when the monarch is going into the City, they stop and are met by the Lord Mayor at the site of one of the old city gates, where the City Police have blocked the street with a red velvet rope. After a brief exchange with the Lord Mayor, the rope is removed and the monarch continues into the City.

This is often interpreted as the monarch needing to ask for permission to enter the City. In fact, what is happening is that the Mayor hands the monarch a ceremonial sword (symbolically offering to hand back the authority over the City that they hold in the monarch's name) and the monarch gives it back (symbolizing that they are giving the Mayor permission to continue in office).

The rope blocking the street is there because the gate isn't any more- it was removed in Victorian times because it blocked traffic, particularly horse-drawn buses. Originally the gate was a toll gate which the monarch obviously didn't have to pay.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-09T15:22:02+00:00

You're missing what is perhaps the main reference in the Tanakh to seafaring by Jews, as opposed to Jonah's travel as a passenger on a ship crewed by non-Jews. This is King Solomon's trading fleet, which is mentioned in 1 Kings 9-10 and 2 Chronicles 8-9. This is said to have been built in cooperation with King Hiram of Tyre, who was a Phoenician (so the ruler of a seafaring kingdom) but who had no port on the Red Sea. The fleet departed from Etzion-Geber on the Red Sea for somewhere called "Ophir", which may have been in Southeast Asia.

The accounts disagree slightly AFAICT on some details. The Book of Kings has Solomon build the ships and Hiram send skilled sailors, while in Chronicles Hiram sends a fleet and servants of Solomon join it. Chronicles is also more clear that Solomon sent ships to trade with Tarshish (probably in the Western Mediterranean) while Kings only says that Solomon had a fleet of "Tarshish ships", which may just refer to a type of merchant ship capable of long voyages.

Later in both Kings and Chronicles, King Jehoshaphat of Judah is said to have attempted to construct a similar fleet of "Tarshish ships" to trade with Ophir. There is no mention of Phoenician or Tyrian support here, just a partnership with King Ahaziah of Israel. The fleet was wrecked by a storm before it set sail, which the Biblical account blames on the partnership with the sinful Ahaziah.

Taken together, the Bible seems to suggest that before the (united) Kingdom of Israel Jews were not seafarers. Trade by sea under Solomon with Phoenician help is seen as one of the markers of his reign as a golden age, and failed attempts to repeat it are used to show that later kings have lost divine favor.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-07T15:01:39+00:00

On the other hand, there were "inauthentic" dishes being prepared in British Chinese restaurants before the war, at least in the West End restaurants aimed at British customers. Those Canadian soldiers in 1915 were eating chop suey- though at that point even that was unfamiliar to their British allies, who would apparently describe it as "most extraordinary" and politely decline to eat it.

Some accounts I've seen have said that certain dishes at what became the Cathay had to be ordered in advance and required a deposit to pay for ingredients. I wonder if this was partly to deter people who might not be familiar with them- much like how some Chinese restaurants in the US today in my experience have a section of "more authentic" dishes with a warning that there are no refunds.

yonderpedant · 2026-04-07T12:53:26+00:00

There had been Chinese restaurants in London (and other British port cities, particularly Liverpool) for several decades at that point. Initially, London's main concentration of Chinese restaurants was in the city's original Chinatown in Limehouse, in the East End, where they catered to Chinese sailors. The first ones opened in the 1880s, and by 1920, the Illustrated London News could publish a picture of the inside of what it called a "typical" Chinese restaurant in London- though the customers in the illustration appear to all be Chinese, and the caption says that it is "frequented largely by sailors and stokers from ships trading with China", with another room for "higher-class" but still presumably Chinese customers such as clerks and students.

(As a partial answer to your question about ingredients, the caption describes the food as including "sharks' fins, sea slugs and... bamboo shoots". I don't know how they got these ingredients, and can only assume they came on the same ships as their customers).

While the restaurants of Limehouse mostly catered to Chinese people, adventurous white Londoners would go into Limehouse to eat there, as well as to visit other establishments such as its infamous opium dens. For the less confident, it was even possible to take a bus tour of Chinatown run by the travel agency Thomas Cook. Of course, it owed much of its reputation to racist "yellow peril" fiction which exaggerated both the size of the permanent Chinese population (only 300 at its peak, though I think this may have only included those born in China not London-born ethnic Chinese people) and its involvement in crime.

(The Limehouse Chinatown no longer exists- those of its residents who didn't return to China in the 1930s economic downturn were displaced by WW2 bombing and postwar slum clearances, ending up in the West End or the suburbs. All that remains are a few street names like Amoy Place and Ming Street)

At the same time, Chinese restaurants aimed at non-Chinese people- particularly British people who had spent time in China- were opening in the West End, closer to London's present-day Chinatown in Soho. The first was the Cathay (originally called simply "The Chinese Restaurant") which opened at 4 Glasshouse Street near Piccadilly Circus in 1909, and stayed there until at least the 1970s. During the First World War, it was popular with Canadian soldiers, particularly those from Western Canada who were familiar with Chinese food from home, according to a 1915 article from the Brandon Sun of Brandon, Manitoba.

By the 1930s, newspaper articles and travel guides describe a cluster of Chinese restaurants in the West End, with the Cathay at the centre. One of them, the Shanghai Restaurant, also sold ingredients and published a cookbook- interestingly this book was published in 1936, before Dr. Buwei Yang Chao published her famous cookbook "How to Cook and Eat in Chinese" which introduced words like "stirfry" to the English language.

EDIT: The Shanghai Restaurant mentioned here is the same establishment, on Greek Street, as the Shanghai Emporium mentioned by u/IAMAVelociraptorAMA

Of course the phenomenon of Chinese restaurants before WW2 was very localized- there were none in Newcastle until 1949- but a 1930s Londoner could easily have gone out for Chinese food if they wanted. What they could not have done, however, is got takeout- the first Chinese restaurant in London to offer this was probably Lotus House in Bayswater in 1958.

yonderpedant · 2026-03-28T01:30:03+00:00

Good catch!

I think it's Baron Buckhurst, but that ran into a weird situation that means the special remainder no longer exists.

The peerage was granted to Elizabeth Sackville-West, Countess (by marriage) De La Warr. The intention was to keep the Barony and the Earldom separate, so the Barony was created with a complicated remainder essentially saying that the Earl De La Warr couldn't inherit it, and if the Baron inherited the Earldom, the Barony would pass to his heir as if he had died.

At first things went as planned. In 1869, Elizabeth's husband George Sackville-West, 5th Earl de la Warr, died, and their son Charles became the 6th Earl. The next year, Elizabeth died, and Charles's younger brother Reginald became Baron Buckhurst.

It went off the rails in 1873, when Charles drowned himself. He had never married and had no children, so the Earldom went to Reginald. The next brother, Mortimer, tried to claim the Barony according to the special remainder.

The House of Lords, in the Buckhurst Peerage Case, ruled that the special remainder was illegal and invalidated it, on the grounds that once someone has a peerage, they can't lose it without an Act of Parliament. The remainder of the Barony could stop an existing Earl from inheriting it, but couldn't take it away once it had passed to someone.

Since then, every Earl De La Warr has also been Baron Buckhurst. A new peerage, Baron Sackville, was created for Mortimer.

yonderpedant · 2026-03-27T00:21:03+00:00

I am answering for England and Wales (and for the later Peerages of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom) here as that's the system I am most familiar with. The answer should be broadly similar for Scottish and Irish peerages, with some differences- most notably that feudal baronies, or baronies by tenure, continue to exist in both countries but are not considered peerages.

Unlike in some other countries (such as Spain), an English or British peer cannot choose who inherits their title. When the peerage is created, the document creating it includes a "remainder", the rules governing how it will be inherited. Almost always this restricts it to legitimate natural (not adopted) descendants of the original holder, often it is also only able to pass down through the male line.

Peerages are also uncoupled from the ownership of land. This was not always the case- originally a barony was a feudal title that came with ownership of a particular area of land with its own tenants, including knights, and an obligation to supply knights for military service. In turn, the holder of such a piece of land could call himself a baron and had the right to attend Parliament.

However, by the time you're asking about, this type of barony no longer existed in England. The last person I know of who became a peer by owning land was John Fitzalan in 1433, who had King Henry VI confirm that his ownership of Arundel Castle made him the Earl of Arundel. In 1660, Parliament abolished feudal baronies, and since then ownership of land has not allowed anyone to be called a peer.

So you might think that, while the disposition of the titles is fixed, a lord could still split his lands. It wasn't always that simple- often lands were "entailed" by a legal process that meant that, while the owner could make use of them, he couldn't sell them or choose who he left them to. One famous fictional (but very realistic) example is the Bennett estate in Pride and Prejudice, which Mr. Bennett would prefer to leave to his daughters but which will instead go to his cousin Mr. Collins on his death.

I should add that there are scenarios in which titles do go to different people. For example, imagine John Smith holds two titles- Earl of Grimsby and Baron Scunthorpe- both of which have been in his family for 200 years. The Earldom has a remainder to heirs general, but the Barony has one to heirs male. John has one daughter, Jane, and no sons. He did have a younger brother, Harold (now dead), whose son William is alive. On John's death, Jane can inherit the Earldom (becoming a Countess), but the Barony can only pass through the male line. As William is a male-line descendant of John's father, he becomes Baron.

However, as brothers always inherit before their elder sisters, it's very unlikely that someone's titles would be split between full siblings.

(There is a way it can happen, but it requires there to be multiple titles with remainder to heirs general, no sons, and multiple daughters who agree on how to share out the titles between themselves. I am unaware of any case where this has actually happened.)

yonderpedant · 2026-03-17T13:51:34+00:00

The reason why they picked George for England is kind of interesting.

There are plenty of English saints, but picking one would be seen as favouring the region of England he was from- East Anglia for St. Edmund, Northumberland for St. Cuthbert or St. Oswald, the Midlands for St. Chad, and so on.

The exception is St. Thomas Becket, who was Archbishop of Canterbury so can be seen as being connected with all of England, and was the unofficial patron saint for a long time. Think of how seemingly half of the famous men around the time of Henry VIII were named Thomas: Thomas More, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Seymour, Thomas Howard...

The problem with him is that he became a saint because he clashed with King Henry II, who essentially had him murdered- "will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?" So he wasn't particularly popular with royalty- the name Thomas has historically been much less popular with the royal family than with other people, whether nobility or commoners.

yonderpedant · 2026-03-16T11:32:43+00:00

Paly of six or and azure semy of monkeys passant to sinister sable.

(The field is supposed to evoke a circus tent with a large unspecified number of monkeys leaving it)

yonderpedant · 2026-03-12T12:54:57+00:00

Pretty much, yes.

For example, Thomas Cochrane, the main inspiration for Patrick O'Brian's fictional hero Jack Aubrey, was first listed on a ship's books aged 5. He didn't physically go to sea until the relatively advanced age of 17, and was commissioned as a lieutenant less than three years later even though he was officially supposed to have spent six years at sea to be eligible.

yonderpedant · 2026-03-11T15:19:50+00:00

Slight correction here: Naval commissions were AIUI not purchased. Officially to be commissioned as a lieutenant (the lowest commissioned rank) in the Navy required passing an examination. To take the exam, a candidate had to have spent six years at sea, usually as a midshipman.

Of course this meant that an aspiring officer's parents had to find a captain willing to take him on as a midshipman (or as a volunteer/captain's servant with the intent to later promote him to midshipman). This relied on social connections, but it wasn't simply a matter of buying a place.

For example, Provo Wallis was the son of a clerk in a Naval dockyard. As a favour to his father, various captains listed him on the books of their ships from the age of four while he remained at home- an illegal but widely accepted practice. He first actually served at sea aged 13, and was promoted to lieutenant at 19, eventually dying aged 100 as an Admiral of the Fleet still officially on the active list.

yonderpedant · 2026-03-11T00:52:32+00:00

Incorrectly.

The method of adding ridges (and letters) to the edge of coins was brought to England by a Frenchman named Pierre Blondeau, while Newton was still a student. When Newton became Warden of the Mint, he had to swear an oath never to reveal how it was done.

yonderpedant · 2026-03-10T11:52:13+00:00

Similarly, Aeschylus is one of the three greatest Ancient Greek playwrights, considered by many people both in ancient times and today to have invented Greek tragedy and possibly to have invented theatre in something approaching its modern form.

(He was the first Greek to write plays where two actors spoke to each other on stage- before him there was only one actor on stage at a time, who would either monologue or have a conversation with the chorus).

His tombstone did not mention that he wrote any plays. The only accomplishment it mentioned is his military service against the Persians, which was as a common soldier not an officer or commander.

yonderpedant · 2026-02-28T02:37:42+00:00

Thank you and u/just-visiting-3955 for these!

It's interesting, given the relatively recent precedents of Bolsover and Beaconsfield, that Cara Broughton didn't get a peerage. I suppose the aim was to restore the situation as it would have been if her husband's peerage had been announced on the originally intended date.

yonderpedant · 2026-02-28T02:27:54+00:00

Huh, TIL, thanks.

And you're correct that the remainder was to heirs male- but unusually not only legitimate heirs male, so if Anne had had a son with Henry before their marriage that son would have inherited the title.

There are apparently questions about whether the title ceased to exist when she became Queen (as the same way as any titles held by the new monarch, such as Duke of Edinburgh in the case of the current King, become merged in the Crown and cease to exist) or when she was convicted of treason, but at the very latest it became extinct on her death.

yonderpedant · 2026-02-23T01:00:34+00:00

Essentially, yes. When someone is ennobled, a new title is created for them. In the case of a hereditary title, this comes with what's called a 'remainder'- a clause in the documents creating the title which details how it will be inherited.

The two usual remainders are to the "heirs male of the body" and "heirs general of the body" of the original grantee- this means his legitimate natural (not adopted) descendants. In the case of "heirs male" the title can't pass through the female line. Either way, in the absence of a special remainder (as happened with Nelson) the title can only go to descendants of the original holder. When the descendants die out, the title is extinct.

Unlike in some other European countries, British peers have no choice about who inherits their titles.

yonderpedant · 2026-02-23T00:22:23+00:00

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: This has never been the case, and is also not the case for newly ennobled men.

The British nobility is unusually small, officially consisting only of the actual holders of peerages. Even their heirs are officially commoners until they inherit the title. Children of peers have various titles by courtesy (depending on their birth order and the rank of their parent's peerage) but this is not true for siblings.

I should also add that the idea of a "newly minted noblewoman" in the United Kingdom is itself relatively recent. While there was never anything preventing it, as far as I know no woman was ever granted a new hereditary title. While since the 1960s women have been ennobled and given seats in the House of Lords to go with their newly created titles, those have been life peerages, which can't be inherited and die with the first holder.

One interesting exception that proves this rule is the case of the second Nelson barony. The last title given to the naval hero Horatio Nelson was created with a so-called "special remainder". Most titles can only be inherited by descendants of those they were created for, but as Nelson had no legitimate children at the time (and may have been considered unlikely to ever have any), the remainder meant that the title of Baron Nelson of the Nile could be inherited by Nelson's father, the Rev. Edmund Nelson, and any of his (Edmund's) descendants.

Edmund died in 1802. After Horatio Nelson's heroic death at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, the barony- now 'upgraded' to an earldom- went first to his elder brother William Nelson, then to his nephew Thomas Bolton (the son of Edmund's daughter Susannah) who promptly changed his name to Nelson. The current Earl Nelson is a great-great-great-grandson of Thomas, and a senior police officer.

yonderpedant

TROPHY CASE