looking at the 1928 Burke's peerage, especially at the succession to
various baronies, and became puzzled on the succession of the Dudley
barony.
Of course there are baronies of writ, and those created by patent.
Perhaps they have different rules of succession? I am asking for help
on this matter of succession.
From browsing Burke, it seems that, while a barony can be succeeded to
by another family through marriage with the only daughter of the
previous family's last baron, in most cases the male lines of descent
from the original baron must be exhausted before another family can
succeed to the barony.
An alternative rule of succession, like that of the British monarchy,
would be succession with preference to the senior male son, his male
offspring, or second sons and so on, but to daughters failing any
surviving male descendents of the last lord.
John Sutton of Dudley was created 1st lord Dudley 1439/40 by writ. The
barony descended through the senior male line to the 5th baron, Edward.
Then Frances, granddaughter of Edward 5th lord Dudley succeeded to the
barony in 1643 on the 5th baron's death. She married Sir Humble Ward,
of which marriage their eldest son, Edward Ward, became 7th Lord Dudley
in 1697 upon the death of Frances, baroness Dudley.
Did Frances Dudley succeed as Baroness Dudley in 1643 because there
were no male Dudleys remaining descended from the 1st baron or, as with
the monarchy, because she was the senior heir of the 5th baron?
To trace back up the tree, to see where there might have been a male
Dudley remaining who could succeed:
Frances Dudley was the only child of Ferdinando Dudley (d.v.p.), the
only son of Edward, the 5th lord Dudley. The 4th lord Dudley had two
sons, of which the second, according to Burke, "had issue, all deceased
without issue in 1660 except Anne, who married Edward Gibson, of York,
and left issue." So no male Dudleys there. The 3rd lord Dudley, John,
had 4 sons, Edward, the 4th lord mentioned above; Sir Henry, who
married a daughter of Sir Christopher Ashton; George, a soldier in the
garrison in Calais; and Thomas, d. 1574, leaving an only child
Elizabeth.
If Sir Henry Dudley or George Dudley (sons of the 3rd baron) had male
heirs, would they have inherited the barony of Dudley in 1643 in
preference to Frances Dudley, granddaughter of Edward, 5th lord Dudley?
If, as has been suggested, Gov. Thomas Dudley was the (only?) grandson
of Sir Henry Dudley, second son of John, 3rd baron, he would have been
the 1st cousin once removed of the 5th baron, and probably the senior
most closely related male Dudley to that baron. On the death of the
5th baron without male issue, the 1st succession senario would have him
succeeding to the barony in preference Frances Dudley.
Additionally, given the 1st succession senario, it would seem that any
male Dudley in descent of the 1st lord Dudley would have succeeded in
preference to Frances Dudley. This would mean that no descendents in
the male line of the 1st Baron existed in 1643.
That seems unlikely but possible, given the many sons of some of the
early Dudley barons.
I look forward to hearing responses from those knowledgeable in
succession to titles of nobility.
Brad Wilson
San Francisco, Calif.