An accountant from the home counties has won the right to inherit a Scottish baronetcy in a pioneering case where DNA testing proved aristocratic entitlement.

The judicial committee of the privy council (JCPC) ruled on Monday that Murray Pringle, 74, who lives in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, should become the next baronet of Stichill.



The seven judges, who are justices on the supreme court in Westminster, found against the claims of Pringle’s second cousin, Simon Pringle, who is in his 50s and lives in Hastings, East Sussex.

The unusual dispute over the baronetcy, which was created by Charles II, was formally referred to the JCPC by the Queen. DNA evidence has never previously been used to resolve disagreements over hereditary titles.

A baronetcy is a title granted by the crown; it is not a peerage. Heirs do not succeed automatically on the death of the holder and must provide evidence proving their relationship to the deceased baronet.

The baronetcy of Stichill – a village near Kelso, Roxburghshire – was formally granted in 1683 to Robert Pringle of Stichill and the “male heirs from his body”.

The 10th baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle – a retired Royal Marines commander who survived an IRA bomb attack – died in 2013 aged 84. Simon Pringle is his son.

But DNA evidence obtained from Sir Steuart as part of the Pringle surname project in 2010 – set up by Murray to determine the chieftainship of the clan – showed he was not part of the male Pringle family line.

Simon Pringle, son of the previous baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

When that scientific conclusion emerged, Murray began to advance his claim to the baronetcy. He argued that Simon should not become the 11th baronet because there had been a “break in the line of paternity”.



The problem over the bloodline, it is suggested, arose following the death of the eighth baronet, Sir Norman Pringle, in 1919. The judges were told that Sir Norman and his wife Florence had three sons, Norman, Ronald – Murray’s father – and James.



In 1920, Florence made a formal statutory declaration saying Norman was the eldest son of the eighth baronet and was entitled to succeed to the title.



Lawyers for Murray Pringle, whose father was Ronald, argued that the eighth baronet was not Norman’s father. Ronald’s son, they said, was therefore the rightful successor.



Lawyers for Simon Pringle resisted the claim and questioned whether DNA evidence should be used to resolve the family dispute.



Disputed claims used to be referred to a standing committee of the privy council, who then advised the Queen on how cases should be resolved. These rare cases are now referred to the JCPC.



In its judgment, the JCPC said DNA evidence demonstrated to “a high degree of probability” that Norman was not the son of the eighth baronet and that there was no legal ground for excluding DNA evidence.



The judicial committee of the privy council (JCPC) courtroom, where the case was heard. Photograph: PR company handout

On that basis they had concluded that Simon Pringle was not the “heir male” of the first baronet. Murray Pringle was the grandson of the eighth baronet and the “heir male” of the first baronet and was therefore entitled to succeed.



The judges expressed their sympathy for “the late Sir Steuart Pringle, a distinguished officer, who faced an unwelcome challenge in his autumnal years, and also Simon Robert Pringle, the heir presumptive, who had grown up in the belief that his father was rightfully the 10th baronet and that he would in time succeed to the baronetcy”.

The acceptance of DNA evidence in inheritance disputes, the justices observed, could have far-reaching implications. “In the past,” they concluded, “the absence of scientific evidence meant that the presumption of legitimacy could rarely be rebutted and claims based on assertions that irregular procreations had occurred in the distant past were particularly difficult to establish.



“Not so now ... DNA evidence [can] reopen a family succession many generations into the past. Whether this is a good thing and whether legal measures are needed to protect property transactions in the past, the rights of the perceived beneficiary of a trust of property, and the long established expectations of a family, are questions for others to consider.”