Emily Minett says a 'dossier of DNA evidence' at the Crown Office may oust late baronet's son from promised title.

The Queen has personally ordered seven of Britain's most senior judges to rule on whether DNA evidence can be used for the first time to resolve a feud over a hereditary title.

The title in question is the Baronetcy of Stichill, which dates back to 1683 when King Charles II granted the title to Robert Pringle of Stichill 'ac heredibus masculis de suo corpore', a Latin phrase translating as 'and his male heirs from his body'.

The late tenth baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle, was the commandant general of the Royal Marines during the Falklands War. On his death in 2013, it was expected that his eldest son, Simon Pringle, would become the eleventh Baronet. However, DNA samples provided for an innocent family tree project controversially indicated that the tenth baronet was not genetically related to his cousins.

This means that that the ninth baronet could not have been the biological son of the eighth baronet - the title had passed through an illegitimate child to the wrong side of the family. This is so, despite the mother of the ninth baronet having made a formal statutory declaration at the time declaring otherwise.

If the Privy Council decides that the DNA evidence is accurate and can be used to decide the matter, the title should pass to Norman Murray Pringle, the descendant on the other side of the family. Simon Pringle laid his claim at the Crown Office in June 2013 and Norman Murray Pringle asserted his rival claim in September 2013, along with a dossier of DNA evidence.

We understand that there is no land or property associated with the title, so the outcome of the case should not affect entitlement to the Pringle estate, although it does raise the question of whether the eighth baronet would have passed the estate to his eldest 'child', had the evidence been available then.

There is a rebuttable presumption in law that a child born to a woman married to a man is the child of her husband, so if the use of DNA evidence is approved, not only would it rebut this presumption, override the earlier statutory declaration and generally be a marked break with tradition, but it could set an important precedent for future cases regarding claims to titles.

It is quite possible that we could see numerous 'pretenders' emerging with genetic evidence of their birthright. It has been reported in the press that this would include the Royal family.

The use of DNA would bring title disputes in line with the law regarding disputes over the succession to assets on death, where DNA evidence is accepted. It is interesting to note that if it was discovered on an intestacy dispute that a child, illegitimate or not, was not the biological child of a deceased and was not adopted by the deceased, that child would not be entitled to receive anything under the intestacy rules.

Put another way: if the eighth baronet had died without a will, the child who controversially inherited the title would not in modern times be entitled to any of his assets. There is a clear mismatch between the succession rules for assets and those for titles.

On a related point, also at odds (many would say rightly) is the law concerning the rights of illegitimate children. Since 1987, illegitimate children have been entitled to inherit under wills and trusts unless the document in question says otherwise. This is not so with titles: these must always pass to legitimate children.

The case is due to be heard by the Privy Council at the end of November. Their ruling as to who should inherit the Baronetcy of Stichill will not just be significant for Norman Murray Pringle and Simon Robert Pringle, but for members of the aristocracy throughout Britain.

This article was originally published in Spears on 20 October 2015

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.