1. All current Royal Dukedoms (i.e. Cambridge, Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) are held with a subsidary Earldom and Barony, whilst the Royal Earldom of Wessex and the Earldom of Snowdon (which was created for the husband of a Princess and will pass to the grandson of the King) are held with a subsidary Viscounty. This made me wonder whether is is simply tradition that the titles be created in this configuration (i.e. that a Royal Duke will also be an Earl and a Baron), if it is just the Queen's preference or if there is another reason?
Personally, I believe it has to do with recent tradition. The first Duke, Earl, Baron creation in recent history began with Queen Victoria's son
Leopold,
Duke of Albany - who was also created
Earl of Clarence and
Baron Arklow - although it wasn't quite "tradition" at that point.
Leopold's nephew, eldest son of Edward VII, was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale and Earl of Athlone (no barony), but his younger son (later
George V) was created
Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney.
George V's 2nd son was also created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney, and in due time, he became
George VI.
The next creation was for
Prince Philip, who upon marriage to (then) Princess Elizabeth, was created
Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.
The Queen has continued this tradition with
The Prince Andrew,
Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Obviously, since The Prince Edward is slated to gain the Duke of Edinburgh title eventually, there was no need to create another dukedom for him upon his marriage and therefore he was made an Earl instead.
2. Does the rank of the subsidary titles matter at all? For example, the Dukedom of Kent is on its way out of the Royal Family and will soon cease to be a "Royal" Dukedom. Assuming that the Earl of Wessex is created Duke of Edinburgh as is expected and that this title similarly passes out of the Royal family to a son of Viscount Severn, would the fact that that the subsidary ranks to the new Dukedom of Edinburgh were an Earldom and a Viscounty, rather than an Earldom and Barony like the Kent Dukedom has, make the title more senior or important? (I hope that makes sense!)
The rank of a subsidiary title will only be reflected in the heir apparent's courtesy, as far as I can tell. Rank in the order of precedence is usually determined by the date of the title's creation, so it wouldn't matter much whether the duke in question held a viscounty or a barony as a subsidiary title.
However, when talking about members of the BRF, it is the Queen's perogative to set the order of precedence as she sees fit.
When
Alexander Windsor becomes
Duke of Gloucester and
George Windsor becomes
Duke of Kent, these two titles will indeed pass out of the realm of "Royal Dukedom".. but both have earldoms as the senior subsidiary titles, and both have baronies for further use as courtesies (for the eldest grandson).
The unknown is whether The Prince Edward will retain his current titles and gain the dukedom of Edinburgh in its entirety (i.e. Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich), or just be given the ducal title and keep the Earldom of Wessex and Viscounty Severn.
Regardless of the titles Edward is given, however, the
Lord James,
Viscount Severn will become a courtesy Earl on his father's elevation (either Earl of Wessex or Earl of Merioneth).
The presence of a viscounty as opposed to a barony doesn't make one title more senior than the other.. when viewed from the date of creation, the new Duke of Edinburgh title will not be nearly as senior as those of Gloucester and Kent.. but the man himself will be much more senior in his proximity to the throne.
3. It also made me wonder why no one in the Royal Family has a Royal Marquessate - either as a main title or as a subsidary one? Has there ever been a Royal Marquess?
I don't believe marquessates have ever been quite as popular in Britain as earldoms have been. Nevertheless, there have been several royal marquessates over the course of history:
In England:
I suppose the first Royal Marquess was also the first hereditary peerage ever given to a woman -
Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke.
Historians cannot be sure exactly how the title ceased to exist, and there are 3 possibilities: a) it merged with the crown on Anne's marriage to Henry VII - b) it was forfeited on 15 May 1536, when she was found guilty of high treason - or c) it became extinct on 19 May 1536, when Anne died without a male heir.
Whether this could be considered a true "Royal Marquessate" I guess depends on how you perceive it.
George II was created 1st Duke of Cambridge,
Marquess of Cambridge, Earl of Milford Haven, Viscount Northallerton and Baron Tewkesbury in 1706.
Great Britain:
Prince
Frederick of Wales (son of George II) was created 1st Duke of Edinburgh,
Marquess of the Isle of Ely, Earl of Eltham, Viscount of Launceston and Baron of Snaudon in 1726.
Prince
William (son of George II) was created Duke of Cumberland,
Marquess of Berkhamstead, Earl of Kennington, Viscount Trematon and Baron Alderney in 1726.
Scotland:
James Stewart (son of James III) was created
Marquess of Ormond at his baptism in 1476. He was later created Earl of Ross (1481) and Duke of Ross (1488).
Charles I of England was created Duke of Albany,
Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch at this baptism on 2 December 1600.
United Kingdom:
This is another questionable "royal" marquessate.. but
HSH Prince Adolphus, Duke of Teck, the brother of
Queen Mary, was created
1st Marquess of Cambridge, Earl of Eltham and Viscount Northallerton in 1917. He took the surname Cambridge at the same time the BRF became the House of Windsor.
He was married to the daughter of the Duke of Westminster, and while not strictly a member of the BRF, he was the brother-in-law of the King.. so I guess his title could be considered "royal" in some fashion.
His son George, succeeded as 2nd Marquess, but the titles became extinct when he died without male heirs.
4. Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the primary reason for the Royal Dukes having more than one title is to represent that the UK is composed of several consituent countries (i.e they have a title representing England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland) however I was thinking that, particularly in this day and age, if this is to be truly representative (or as representative as a titled member of a 'Royal' Family can be!) shouldn't there also be a title to represent Wales? I mean, I know the Duke of Cambridge will presumably eventually be invested with the title Prince of Wales when he becomes heir to the throne, but at present (despite living in Wales, which only adds to the irony) he went from being someone whose official title was "of Wales" to someone whose official titles no longer mention Wales? How much harder would it have been for the Queen to have added in the Viscounty of Bangor or the Marquessate of Wrexham (for example)?
I don't think it would have been hard at all for the Queen to create a Welsh title for Prince William, but as the heir to the throne is The Prince of Wales, his title alone denotes the historic importance of the position of Wales within the UK.
Prince William did not lose his designation "of Wales", even though his new style is HRH The Duke of Cambridge.. and as you point out, eventually he will be The Prince of Wales in his own right.. at least everyone expects he will be invested with that title when Charles becomes king.
Besides.. a princely title trumps all the others anyway, regardless of their location.. and I'm not so sure the Welsh people would welcome another BRF title in Wales.. maybe someone else can better explain, but at one time the Welsh wanted their independence from the UK.. I haven't heard what the recent feeling is on the matter..
Welcome to the Forum, Lord Pemberley
So I'm assuming it's only those in the immediate family (down to 1st cousins, 2nd cousins?) that bothers to ask for permission to marry?
