Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

[branchg]

Originally Posted by 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?

Yes, pretty much so. And the property actually held by the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are not limited to those areas. They hold property all over Britain, including in London.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by branchg

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.

It's not automatic that the Crown Lands belong to Parliament and the British people, it's simply been tradition that every Monarch since George III has continued to give up the revenue from them in return for the fixed payments from the Civil List.

From the official Crown Estate website -

an agreement was reached that the Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment - today known as the Civil List. This agreement has, at the beginning of each reign, been repeated by every succeeding Sovereign.

Unless it has been changed over the years, which I am not aware of, the Duchy of Lancaster was specifically created separately from the rest of the Crown Lands so that, in the event of the Throne being lost, the Lancaster Dukes would still have access to its revenues and funds.

The Duchy's own website says the following as part of its history:

The regulating charter was known to contemporaries as the Charter of Duchy Liberties. Later the Great Charter of the Duchy specified that the inheritance should be held separately from all other Crown possessions, and should descend to Henry's (of Bollingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, the first Duke of Lancaster - my addition) male heirs.

Henry was anxious that the Lancaster possessions should not merge with other Crown interests, and be lost to his family should he lose the throne. Keeping the inheritance separate was a shrewd move to protect his descendants' inheritance. A charter of 1485 confirmed the Duchy as a distinct entity to be enjoyed by subsequent Sovereigns, separate from other Crown lands, and under its own management. There has been no fresh settlement since.

Similarly, the Duchy of Cornwall is held independent of the Crown Estate even though it is managed by it, and cannot be passed over. If there were no Duke of Cornwall the estate would become vested in the Sovereign but would not become part of the Crown Estate. It would be held until the next heir to the throne was born and became automatically Duke of Cornwall.

Both Lancaster and Cornwall duchies have special rules which apply only to them including the right to any estate where no named heirs are left (instead of the property going to the Crown/Government) and they have their own Attorney-Generals. Both Duchies also appoint their own Sheriff rather than the Crown.

Most ducal land holdings in the UK exist outside of their titual counties, it's one of those lovely quirks of history. If I remember rightly, the Duke of Devonshire holds no lands whatsoever in Devon. There is a lovely folk tale that James I, when asked what the title for the Earldom should be, misheard Derbyshire (where most of the lands are held) as Devonshire and thus created William Cavendish Earl of Devonshire.

As an aside, I interviewed the current Duke of Devonshire shortly after he took over the titles and prepared to move from his home in Bolton Abbey, Yorkshire, down to Chatsworth. He is a lovely man and very supportive of the tenants of the Devonshire Estate.

[rob2008]

Sussex or Cambridge are the best available royal dukedoms for The Prince Henry and Edward should have simpy been given one or the other instead of generating confusing, contradictory claptrap about the prestigious Edinburgh title. However, Prince is a higher rank and title than Duke and the only value of conferring the inferior honour of a dukedom is to create a dynasty - since Prince is limited in hereditability and duke is not.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by rob2008

Sussex or Cambridge are the best available royal dukedoms for The Prince Henry and Edward should have simpy been given one or the other instead of generating confusing, contradictory claptrap about the prestigious Edinburgh title. However, Prince is a higher rank and title than Duke and the only value of conferring the inferior honour of a dukedom is to create a dynasty - since Prince is limited in hereditability and duke is not.

Just a note - Harry is not yet 'The Prince Henry'. He will be when Charles becomes King but until then he is Prince Henry of Wales, just as William is Prince William of Wales but Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward of The Prince/Princess as they are the children of the monarch.

The 'of Wales', 'of York', 'of Gloucester' and 'of Kent' indicate that the holder isn't the child of the monarch and thus isn't entitled to the 'The Prince/Princess ...'

[Alison20]

As an aside - Duke of Rothesay is the title that is used by Prince Charles, instead of Duke of Cornwall, when he is in Scotland. Camilla is, therefore, correctly titled Duchess of Rothesay when she is in Scotland.

The Queen is, I believe, also Duke of Normandy, and is because of this the ruler of the Channel Islands (which are not part of the United Kingdom).

[Helvellyn]

Edward could potentially end up with several titles if King Charles III creates him Duke of Edinburgh. Why? Because the titles Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn have been granted already. The Dukedom of Edinburgh could be granted on its own, but it could be granted with another Earldom and a Barony.

I believe the reason for stating that Edward will eventually become Duke of Edinburgh is that he is heavily involved in the Duke of Edinburgh scheme founded by his father. Now he could have kept this up with a different Dukedom, but I guess the feeling is that eventaully taking his Father's title is a way of continuing the link in a more visible manner.

What I still can't figure out is why the title Earl of Wessex was revived for him. There are plenty of other titles with royal associations that he could have been granted as an Earldom, even if it is a very old Royal title. What next though - Earl of Mercia as a subsiduary title for Prince William?

[Marengo]

Originally Posted by Helvellyn

What next though - Earl of Mercia as a subsiduary title for Prince William?

Duke of Bernicia, Earl of Mercia and Baron Rheged has a nice ring to it. And if all fails I suppose they can make him king of Avalon .

----

Is the Iverness title used these days? It was used for the 2nd wife of the duke of Sussex (one of the sons of George III, and it does has a nice ring to it. Duke of Kendal can be nice too. It was used for a (short lived) son of James II and Anne Hyde, and later for a mistress of George I. I hope they will revive some of these older and less familiar titles in the years to come.

[AshleyAthena]

I think either the Duke of York has Iverness as one of his subsidary titles. Its either him or the Duke of Edinburgh.

[Marengo]

I have looked it up and it is indeed the duke of York who has Iverness (earl of =) as a subsidary title. Thanks!

[Frideswide]

It's Inverness, not Iverness (sorry to be picky)

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I have looked it up and it is indeed the duke of York who has Iverness (earl of =) as a subsidary title. Thanks!

It was also the secondy title of King George VI. before he became King.

[lwbohm]

I think edward deserves the title duke of edinbourgh.
He has worked hard for his fathers legacy and although sticky i think it is deserving.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by lwbohm

I think edward deserves the title duke of edinbourgh.
He has worked hard for his fathers legacy and although sticky i think it is deserving.

And he will probably get it - when it is available at some time in the future but...first of all it has to be available for regrant and that can't happen until both the Queen and the present Duke are dead. It is also necessary that either Charles or William are alive to become King (and there is no reason why they shouldn't be but...). If William has a daughter first and then he and Charles die before the Queen then Harry will inherit Edinburgh and it won't be available for Edward - that is why the announcement in 1999 included the mention of the death of both the Queen and Philip and the title merging with the crown.

[pacomartin]

The Battenberg/Mountbatten family name did not have an auspicious beginning. However, it has become very important in British history.

I raised a point in another thread. Prince Phillip seems very concerned about his family name not vanishing. All the male line Mountbatten lines seem to be dead. The children of Viscount James will be non-royal and have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. I thought that Prince Phillip would like to see them also bear the ducal name of Edinburgh.

Of course there was no positive way to know that Edward would have a son. But he seemed to be the last hope. Princes Harry and William could eventually have common male line descendants , but since that may not happen for many decades, the hyphenated last name may be ignored by then.

The limited response I got was this idea has no merit. That Prince Edward wanted to be an Earl, simply because he wanted lower visibility. The following news article suggest that Prince Edward got the name from the movie character in Shakespeare in Love.

Anyone else see some validity to this theory that the motivation to make Edward a temporary Earl may have come from Prince Phillip ? If you think the idea is stupid, then I will accept that opinion as well.

Although you can always postulate scenarios, it is highly unlikely that Prince Edward will not receive the title of Duke of Edinburgh

[wbenson]

Posts about the revenues from the Crown Estate have been moved to the Royal Wealth and Finances thread

[branchg]

I don't know how much Philip really cares at this point in his life about "Mountbatten". It was never a real family name, but in fact, was totally made up in 1917 by his grandfather when George V informed his German relatives who were British subjects to relinquish their royal styles and titles.

Philip was never a Mountbatten. He was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and like most titled royals, never had a surname.

[Iluvbertie]

It is more symbolic to him to pass on something to his children and grandchildren.

He also most certainly did use the name Mountbatten. That was the name he chose when he became a British citizen so he was Lt Philip Mountbatten. It was also the name that was used officially on the wedding programme in 1947 - because that was all done before his creation as Duke of Edinburgh. e.g. Queen Elizabeth II & Prince… - General Memorabilia - Charles Leski Auctions Pty. Ltd. - Antiques Reporter

This image clearly refers to Philip as Lt Philip Mountbatten and is an invitation to their wedding.

[branchg]

Yes, of course. But my point is he had to assume a surname as part of his naturalization process before he married The Queen. It wasn't something he was particularly attached to and he soon became a Royal Duke afterward, again with no surname.

Royal do not usually use a surname as they are titled and of royal rank.

[RomeFriedrich7A]

Hello!
I am most probably the latest member of this great forum, an Austrian student (18) with some minor ties to German and British nobility. As I am very interested in Britain, I have a question nobody has ever been able (or willing) to answer:
I do know that except the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall no Royal Dukedom is associated with lands or estates (p.e. the Dukedoms of Kent, Gloucester, York, Cambridge and many other currently unassigned ones as well). However, there are sill many non-royal dukes (I'm not sure whether really all) that still own vast amounts of lands. (In 2005, the Duke of Norfolk even had difficulties obeying the law that called for land registration.) So, WHY are members of the reigning house not conferred on dukedoms that go along with land property? Wouldn't it be self-evident that is people who carry out public and royal duties to possess these rewards for serving the Crown (which dukedoms orinially were)? Is there any official reason for that? Seems very illogical to me. Thank you in advance.

[Lumutqueen]

What's the point in actually owning land when you're King or Queen of the entire country?
The public would probably say something about the royals owning more than they should. They have enough, why take the land that ordinary people could own?