Is there any way that a British peer could disinherit his legitimate heir?

Question

The period I'm interested in is the beginning of the 19th century. I know that titles and entailed property were usually passed on, after the peer's death, to his eldest legitimate son (if he had one), but what if the father would have become very angry with his son? Is there any valid reason at all that the peer could have used to disinherit his son or, in any case, prevent him from inheriting the title?

Answer 1

No, see my other answer. And in the case of peerages these were not within the father's right to give or withhold. Peerages are granted by Letters Patent from the sovereign which would provide for how they were to descend - usually to eldest son,or eldest male heir. Indeed, the heir had to take on the title, whether he liked it or not. This situation pertained until the 1960s. In that decade a leading politician, Antony Benn, inherited his father's title which prevented him from sitting as an MP. He tried to disclaim that title, but found he could not. An Act of Parliament had to be passed to permit it to happen. He and other politicians took advantage, the ironic thing being that at least one (Quentin Hogg/Lord Hailsham) had later to be given a life peerage to enable him to become Lord Chancellor!