A hereditary peerage

When a hereditary peerage had a situation where there were no heirs, did the title always go on hold after the last person's demise?
Or could the monarch confer the title immediately on anyone?
Was it required that the individual be of the nobility or could the title go to a commoner?
 
In the British system and its predecessors (England, Scotland and Ireland) Assuming the title was legally extinct and no-one else had a lawful claim - it was at the discretion of the monarch to regrant it and there would be no time limit.
In the British system only a title holder is a peer and therefore a noble (everyone else is a commoner).
 
In the British system and its predecessors (England, Scotland and Ireland) Assuming the title was legally extinct and no-one else had a lawful claim - it was at the discretion of the monarch to regrant it and there would be no time limit.
Mind you, there are several different ways in which a title can fall out of use: There's 'extinct', which is the one about Leopold Philippe actually asked, but there's also both 'abeyant' (where the most recent holder of a title that can only be inherited by males but can pass through the female line had two or more daughters, in which case the title passes out of use until either there's only one of those lineages left or some agreement is -- with royal consent -- reached by the rivals) and 'dormant' (where there's no identified heir but the situation was such that somebody in the line of succession might have left heirs somewhere who could potentially come forwards...) too.

In the British system only a title holder is a peer and therefore a noble (everyone else is a commoner).
Technically I think that the title-holder's wife and eldest [legitimate] son -- and perhaps eldest son's eldest [legitimate] son, too -- also count as 'noble'.
 
Technically I think that the title-holder's wife and eldest [legitimate] son -- and perhaps eldest son's eldest [legitimate] son, too -- also count as 'noble'.
They're noble commoners :) Both the wife of the peer and their eldest son that bears a courtesy title are not peers themselves and thus they were able to sit in the House of Commons back when peers were barred from sitting there.

The concept of being a British "noble" is not much different from the concept of being a British aristocrat. But all-knowing-all-reliable wikipedia says that those who can bear arms are officially noble so there's that.
 
They're noble commoners :) Both the wife of the peer and their eldest son that bears a courtesy title are not peers themselves and thus they were able to sit in the House of Commons back when peers were barred from sitting there.
Wives and widows of peers were not entitled to sit in Lords. But they were entitled to be tried by Lords, not by judges and juries. Which went problematic in case of the Duchess of Kingston accused of bigamy: the trial could have been ABOUT whether she was entitled to be tried by Lords. Luckily this was resolved because of who her husbands were: if she were innocent, she would have been widow of one peer, if guilty, the wife of another peer.
 
When a hereditary peerage had a situation where there were no heirs, did the title always go on hold after the last person's demise?
Or could the monarch confer the title immediately on anyone?
Was it required that the individual be of the nobility or could the title go to a commoner?

Assuming it is male-to-male only then its clear when there are no heirs and the title reverts to the crown, after which it can be bestowed almost immediately.

If descent through the female line is allowed, it is more complicated but do not forget that each new monarch reissues letters patent for all existing titles of nobility, or if not actually they do in theory. Thus if a title has gone into abeyance, there is nothing preventing a new monarch issuing it to a new holder, whether or not there may turn out to be some heirs somewhere sometime.

If a title is not granted to someone else, it is possible for an heir coming forward to claim it after many generations, again though at the monarch's agreement. The Courtenay Earls of Devon did this, despite there being a Duke of Devonshire at the same time.

Claims go down ad infinitum to the legal extent allowed by the initial grant, but it is always up to the reigning monarch to recognise them.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
In the British system only a title holder is a peer and therefore a noble (everyone else is a commoner).

Yes, the heir has a courtesy title (the highest secondary title granted to the title, so a Duke may have a Marquis as his second title, or an Earl, or Viscount or if none of these ALWAYS a Barony because you can't be a higher noble without having a lower barony)

Thus, for example the Marquess of Granby was the secondary title of the Duke of Rutland and thus granted as a courtesy title to his heir, but it is just that, a courtesy. It does not make him not a commoner in terms of ability to sit in the House of Commons because he is never called in his own right to the Lords

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top