Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Some peerages are more important that others such as Duke of Edinburgh ranks higher than Duke of Norfolk, most likely to do with land, or the person who bares the title.

Peerages of the same degree are ranked by the date of the grant of the current creation. The Dukedom of Norfolk is much more senior than the Dukedom of Edinburgh (the former dates from 1483, the latter from 1947). However, the current Duke of Edinburgh was granted precedence just after the Queen regardless of his being a Duke. Royal dukes also rank above "plain" dukes.

Edit: Actually, it's not always by date:

• Dukes in the peerage of England
• Dukes in the peerage of Scotland
• Dukes in the peerage of Great Britain
• Dukes in the peerage of Ireland (before 1801)
• Dukes in the peerage of the United Kingdom, and Dukes in the peerages of Ireland (after 1801)

Within those categories, they're ranked by date. (I'm not sure if Scottish dukes take precedence over English dukes in Scotland, though.)

[NancyJJ]

Something I don't quite understand. Can you have a Duke, Marquis or Earl of wherever even if someone is already known by a courtesy title? Example -

If you have a Marquis of Milford Haven you "can't" have an Earl of Milford Haven?

Another example - let's say there is an Earl of Cambridge (which I believe that name is not in use at the moment) but could there still be a Duke of Cambridge? or someone being a Duke and Earl of Cambridge, etc.

I hope my examples make sense!!!! :)

I knew there was an Eart of St. Andrews but didn't think it mattered when it came to the title Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews (since there is no Duke of St. Andrews from I understand).

This website Useranbarnesdavies/Royal peerages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia lists an Earl of Sussex - that's why I mentioned it. And in all of my reading I have seen where some are titled Duke and Earl of the same name.

Thanks!!! This has been interesting and fun!

[AshleyAthena]

See, I have always assumed that there can't be more than one of a "name" no matter if its a high title or courtesy title, hence my comment about there already being a St Andrews title in use. However, I don't know for sure.

[Hereditary Thane]

Hello Ashley Athena

I can understand your confusion. The duplicating of nobiliary names sometimes happens, by historical accident, or through succession. The eldest son of the Earl of Strathmore has the courtesy title, Lord Glamis, however the earl holds a very ancient title: Thane of Glamis. When a nobleman is raised to a higher degree (say from baron to earl) he may keep the territorial designation or be given another one. When a member of the Lambton family was made Earl of Durham, he was already Baron Durham.

I do hope this doesn't confuse you! There is a Dukedom of Sutherland and an Earldom of Sutherland, represented by different branches of the same family. This is because in Scotland females can inherit comital titles, but not ducal titles. The earls were raised to dukes of the same territorial designation (Sutherland), when a later duke failed male issue his ducal title went to a kinsman nearest to the first duke, but the earldom went to the duke's daughter. Also there are two earldoms of Arran, one in the Scottish peerage and one in the Irish peerage, and held by different families.

[agogo]

Why is Edward an earl and Andrew a duke? Why did Queen Elizabeth chose different titles for her two sons when they married?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by agogo

Why is Edward an earl and Andrew a duke? Why did Queen Elizabeth chose different titles for her two sons when they married?

It was announced at the time of Edward's marriage that if and when the title is available Edward will become the Duke of Edinburgh. That can't happen while either The Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh is alive and mightn't happen if certain other eventualities come into play. See The future of the Duke of Edinburgh title

[branchg]

Originally Posted by NancyJJ

Something I don't quite understand. Can you have a Duke, Marquis or Earl of wherever even if someone is already known by a courtesy title? Example -

If you have a Marquis of Milford Haven you "can't" have an Earl of Milford Haven?

Yes, it happens. Queen Victoria created her son The Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany and Earl of Clarence, then re-created Clarence for her eldest male-line grandson, Prince Eddie, as Duke of Clarence and Avondale.

Eddie died without male issue, so the dukedom is extinct. The Earldom of Clarence is still extant, but suspended, under the Titles Deprivation Act for the descendants of Charles Eduard, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who lost his British peerages in 1917 for bearing arms against Great Britain in World War I as a German duke.

[Warren]

Posts relating specifically to William and Harry and future offspring have been moved to the Titles and Styles of William, Harry, Wives & Children thread in the William & Harry subforum.

I know there's a degree of crossover but we'd like to keep the contents of the two threads fairly clearly defined as much as possible. For this reason discussion of possible dukedoms for Wills 'n Harry has been moved out of the 'Royal Dukes and Ducal Titles' thread.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

[Hereditary Thane]

Iluvbertie

Why would the Prince Edward have to wait until H.M. died to inherit his father's ducal title? The heir to any dukedom be it royal or otherwise (they are both peerages and technically a royal dukedom is no diferent from any other peerage; the exception would be the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall) immmediately inherits the title on the death of the previous duke, though would not use the style and title until after the funeral and official mourning.

I find the current fashion for the sovereign to fudge issues to accommodate political stratergies, by limiting royal titles within her family a puzzle. We are frequently told H.M. acts on the advice of her ministers, yet by not appreciating the work of those so called "minor royals" as the Gloucesters, the Kents (including Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra) it looks a poor show.

[MAfan]

If the Duke of Edinburgh died before the Queen, his title would be inherited by his eldest son, Charles; he would remain DoE until his accession to the Throne (at the Queen's death), when the title would return to the Crown. At that point he could re-create it for Edward.

If the DoE died after the Queen, the DoE title would return to the Crown, and King Charles could re-create it for Edward.

In any case, unless Charles, William, Henry and Andrew died before the DoE, Edward can become DoE only after a new creation of this title by his brother Charles (or his successor as King).

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Hereditary Thane

Why would the Prince Edward have to wait until H.M. died to inherit his father's ducal title?

As I said in the linked explanation the Duke of Edinburgh title is a normal royal title so inheritance is through male heirs of his body.

The line of succession to the Edinburgh title is: Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Edward and James.

Edward therefore can't 'inherit' the Edinburgh title directly as Charles is the heir to that title just as he is the heir to his mother's titles. As a result the Edinburgh title won't be avaliable to be recreated for Edward until both the Queen and the Duke are dead and the title has merged with the crown.

However there are scenarios - spelt out in the link I put in my last post - whereby the title would never become available for Edward or he could inherit if directly although the most likely scenario is that after the death of both his parents his brother Charles created him Duke of Edinburgh in accordance with the wishes of his parents and the agreement made when Edward married.

It is not a case of Edward not using an inherited title until the death of both his parents but simply the fact that he, in all likelihood, won't be the one inheriting that title but will have to wait until it is available for regrant.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Lord Campbell

The Duchy of Windsor

There are no duchies in the UK except for Lancaster and Cornwall, both of which are enjoyed by The Sovereign and the eldest son and heir in right of it in the case of Cornwall. If the Dukedom of Cornwall is vacant, the revenues accrue to The Sovereign.

George VI suggested "Windsor" as a dukedom to associate the former King with the name of the royal house and the seat of Windsor Castle. Prince Edward liked it and agreed with his brother it was appropriate.

[Zonk]

So there are only two Duchy (ies)....and the rest are Dukedoms.
And they are in fact different because of income?

[Lumutqueen]

The Queen is also Duke of Normandy, so would that not count as a duchy aswell.

A duchy is ruled over by a Duke, I don't know what differs Lancaster and Cornwall from others such as Windsor or Cambridge, possible to do with money. Or the fact they belong to the Crown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchies_in_England

[Zonk]

I Believe that is the key...that these dukedoms belong to the Crown.

[Lord Campbell]

Riveting stuff people....I love reading all this.

Originally Posted by branchg

There are no duchies in the UK except for Lancaster and Cornwall.

Yes I should have said Dukedom instead of Duchy.It's what I meant of course...thank you

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Zonk

I Believe that is the key...that these dukedoms belong to the Crown.

Actually, any Peerage created by the Crown for a member of the royal family is considered to be of the "blood royal" meaning it can only pass through "heirs of body". Unlike other peerages, upon merging with the Crown, it is eventually re-created for another member of the royal family then living.

So, in that sense, these Peerages always are associated with the Crown even after a successor no longer holds royal rank as HRH. This will happen with Kent and Gloucester after the deaths of Princes Richard and Edward, and would have occurred with Windsor as well if The Duke had male issue.

[Zonk]

But how do the other dukedoms differ from the Duchies?

[branchg]

A duchy was traditionally associated with an independent, sovereign state in Europe during the Holy Roman Empire or in Germany before unification under the Empire in 1871.

Great Britain really never had a collection of duchies that were truly independent, although the Crown in medieval times would certainly award Peerages to loyal, wealthy supporters associated with geographic areas under their feudal and military control. But, even if in name only, these feudal peers pledged allegiance to the Crown and a united England.

Lancaster and Cornwall are called "duchies" because, by Act of Parliament, they are held by The Sovereign in right of the Crown and the income is paid without restriction to provide funds for the monarchy not under the control of Parliament.

Given that George III surrendered the Crown Estate, it is somewhat compensation to the monarchy to retain these lands, although in reality, they belong to the State and are not their personal property. If the Crown is dissolved, these lands return to the State, not the royal family.

[kbk]

Isn't that all about that the Duchies are some portion of land that is the property of the Sovereign, and the Dukedoms are just titles, not connected to any land, in name only?