The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 08-02-2020, 09:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,825
The Dukes - Duke is the title and so is capitalised in the same was as Prince or Queen.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 08-02-2020, 10:13 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by brwhizz31 View Post
Thanks for your response.

The only example I can find of a duke descended from a royal duke being referred to using an ordinal number (officially styled or not) is in the case of Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. He inherited the position from his grandfather, Prince Arthur (the first Duke), a son of Queen Victoria. As a great-grandson of a monarch (post-1917), he was not a prince and therefore not a royal duke. Perhaps the number was applied because he was non-royal, and therefore like any regular duke, unlike in the cases of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester. You suggested that numbers are not needed where the current aforementioned dukes are concerned because there have only been two of each, but the same could be said of the example that I mentioned.

Worthy of note, Alastair Windsor died before having children, and so the title became extinct, meaning there was no 3rd Duke.
It seems that it is indeed uncommon to refer to royal dukes by their ordinal number, however, I would expect them to be referred to as such once they are part of history (for example a hundred years from now). Because at that point it becomes relevant to distinguish between the two royal dukes of the same creation with the same title (the original and his son). In daily life I don't believe the ordinal is always used for other peers - but only in specific situations, especially when the discussion centers around succession or family history.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 08-02-2020, 11:52 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
It seems that it is indeed uncommon to refer to royal dukes by their ordinal number, however, I would expect them to be referred to as such once they are part of history (for example a hundred years from now). Because at that point it becomes relevant to distinguish between the two royal dukes of the same creation with the same title (the original and his son). In daily life I don't believe the ordinal is always used for other peers - but only in specific situations, especially when the discussion centers around succession or family history.
Yes, that sounds like a very plausible explanation. It's interesting that ducal lines beginning with a royal duke usually don't seem to last very long, which probably accounts for a lack of 'ordinal dukes'. Extinction seems to happen within a couple of generations of their creation, if that. Are heir presumptives non-existent where royal dukes are concerned? If there's no son as heir, is that the end of it? In non-royal dukedoms meanwhile, there are cases of very distant cousins inheriting the position. Perhaps there is less 'pressure' to stop a royal dukedom from going extinct because it can easily be re-created, whereas this is probably not the case for non-royal dukes (although the title itself is not inherently 'royal', just the male it is bestwowed upon).
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 08-02-2020, 01:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by brwhizz31 View Post
Yes, that sounds like a very plausible explanation. It's interesting that ducal lines beginning with a royal duke usually don't seem to last very long, which probably accounts for a lack of 'ordinal dukes'. Extinction seems to happen within a couple of generations of their creation, if that. [...] In non-royal dukedoms meanwhile, there are cases of very distant cousins inheriting the position. Perhaps there is less 'pressure' to stop a royal dukedom from going extinct because it can easily be re-created, whereas this is probably not the case for non-royal dukes (although the title itself is not inherently 'royal', just the male it is bestwowed upon).
But did non-royal dukedoms become extinct at a faster pace on average than royal dukedoms? I would suppose that the dukes whose male line descent was numerous enough for there to be distant cousins in line to the dukedom are the minority.


Quote:
Originally Posted by brwhizz31 View Post
Are heir presumptives non-existent where royal dukes are concerned? If there's no son as heir, is that the end of it?
Whether for royal or non-royal dukes, "heirs male of the body, legally begotten" of the grantee is the standard remainder.
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 08-02-2020, 02:11 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Quote:
Whether for royal or non-royal dukes, "heirs male of the body, legally begotten" of the grantee is the standard remainder.
Shouldn’t this therefore mean that titles such as the Dukedom of York pass to the current Earl of Wessex, his son or another male relative after the death of the current Duke (Prince Andrew), as opposed to becoming extinct because of a lack of sons? This has certainly happened in a number of non-royal dukedoms, such as the 6th Duke of Devonshire, whose title passed on to a very distant cousin due to his not having a son.
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 08-02-2020, 02:57 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by brwhizz31 View Post
Yes, that sounds like a very plausible explanation. It's interesting that ducal lines beginning with a royal duke usually don't seem to last very long, which probably accounts for a lack of 'ordinal dukes'. Extinction seems to happen within a couple of generations of their creation, if that. Are heir presumptives non-existent where royal dukes are concerned? If there's no son as heir, is that the end of it? In non-royal dukedoms meanwhile, there are cases of very distant cousins inheriting the position. Perhaps there is less 'pressure' to stop a royal dukedom from going extinct because it can easily be re-created, whereas this is probably not the case for non-royal dukes (although the title itself is not inherently 'royal', just the male it is bestwowed upon).
The longer a dukedom exists the more likely it is there is some heir, so in that way, yes, the older ones are more likely to survive - because they survived the first few generations/for so long and there are more distant relatives to choose from. However, non-royal dukedoms also went extinct in the past, however, as they are no longer created we don't observe them going extinct any longer.

Check this list of dukedoms in the Peerage of Britain and Ireland and you'll see the majority went extinct of both royal and non-royal ones.
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 08-02-2020, 03:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,101
Let's take a look into the most recent royal dukedoms to compare the number in line of succession (I will do another one on some non-royal dukedoms later):

Created by Queen Elizabeth II:
Duke of Sussex: 1 (at risk)
Duke of Cambridge: 2 (expected to merge with the crown)
Duke of York: 0

Created by King George VI:
Duke of Edinburgh: 9 (expected to merge with the crown)
Duke of Windsor: extinct

Created by King George V:
Duke of Kent: 8 for 2nd (likely to survive)
Duke of Gloucester: 2 for 2nd (at risk)
Duke of York: 0 (merged with the crown)

Created by Queen Victoria:
Duke of York: 5 (merged with the crown)
Duke of Clarence and Avondale: 0 (ended with death of first holder)
Duke of Albany: deprived of 2nd holder - at that point there were 3 heirs - 2 of them later in life having multiple sons and male-line grandsons
Duke of Connaught and Strathearn: 1 for 1st creation; ended with death of second holder)
Duke of Edinburgh: 1 for 1st creation but heir died before the duke; ended with death of first holder
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 08-02-2020, 03:59 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by brwhizz31 View Post
Whether for royal or non-royal dukes, "heirs male of the body, legally begotten" of the grantee is the standard remainder.
Shouldn’t this therefore mean that titles such as the Dukedom of York pass to the current Earl of Wessex, his son or another male relative after the death of the current Duke (Prince Andrew), as opposed to becoming extinct because of a lack of sons? This has certainly happened in a number of non-royal dukedoms, such as the 6th Duke of Devonshire, whose title passed on to a very distant cousin due to his not having a son.

The difference is that the Earl of Wessex is no descendant of the first Duke of York of the present creation (Prince Andrew). In the case of the Duke of Devonshire or also the Dukes of Westminster those distand relatives who succeeded where male line descendants of the first or a later Duke.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 08-02-2020, 04:34 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,101
Let's take a look at the Duke of Richmond (also Duke of Lennox and Duke of Gordon - although the latter only applies since the 6th Duke). Currently, there are 19 male-line male heirs descending from the 6th duke (so eligible to inherit all three dukedoms). Of which only the first three are direct descendants of the current (11th) duke; numbers 4 to 14 descend from the current duke's great-great-grandfater (7th duke); while 15 to 19 descend from the great-great-great-grandfather (6th duke). However, the numbers have varied a bit over time.

For the continuity of the dukedom it seems that the 4th duke (who himself was a nephew instead of a son of the holder) was really helpful as he had 6 sons. So, from that moment on the dukedom was much less likely to go extinct... And more recently, the 7th duke having 3 sons with male-line descendants makes a difference.

First duke: 1 heir (son) at the time of his death

Second duke: 2 heirs (sons) at the time of his death

Third duke: 7 heirs (his nephew and the nephew's 6 sons - out of 14 children) at the time of his death

Fourth duke: 6 heirs (5 sons + 1 grandson) at the time of his death

Fifth duke: about 17 heirs (4 sons (a fifth passed away before him), 3 grandsons by his eldest son, 3 brothers, 7 nephews)

Sixth duke: at least 10 heirs (4 sons, 4 grandsons, 2 or 3 great-grandsons, and surely several cousins - I couldn't find the years of birth/deaths of his cousins (that were included in the '7 nephews above and whether they had children)

Seventh duke: at least 7 heirs (2 sons, 4 grandsons, 1 nephew)

Eight duke: at least 8 heirs (1 son (the third and youngest; the elder two sons either died in childhood or in war), 2 grandsons, 1 brother, 3 nephews, 1 great-nephew)

Ninth duke: at least 14 heirs (2 sons, 2 grandsons, 3 first cousins-once-removed,
4 first coursins-twice removed, 1 second cousin, 2 second cousins-once-removed)

Tenth duke: at least 22 heirs (1 son, 3 grandsons (by the son's second wife - I wonder whether the 'need' for male-off spring played a role in their divorce), 1 nephew, 3 second cousins-once removed, 4 second cousins-twice-removed, 5 second cousins-thrice-removed, 1 third cousin, 2 third cousins-twice-removed, 2 third cousins-thrice removed)
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 08-02-2020, 11:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by brwhizz31 View Post
Yes, that sounds like a very plausible explanation. It's interesting that ducal lines beginning with a royal duke usually don't seem to last very long, which probably accounts for a lack of 'ordinal dukes'. Extinction seems to happen within a couple of generations of their creation, if that. Are heir presumptives non-existent where royal dukes are concerned? If there's no son as heir, is that the end of it? In non-royal dukedoms meanwhile, there are cases of very distant cousins inheriting the position. Perhaps there is less 'pressure' to stop a royal dukedom from going extinct because it can easily be re-created, whereas this is probably not the case for non-royal dukes (although the title itself is not inherently 'royal', just the male it is bestwowed upon).
Generally, for some reason, they seem to only have one son in each generation. The current Kent dukedom is a rarity with not only two sons for the first duke but two for the second as well. The Earl of St Andrews only has the one son but his brother, Lord Nicholas has 3 so there are plenty of heirs to Kent ...

a. The Earl of St Andrews
b. Baron Downpatrick
c. Lord Nicholas Windsor
d. Albert Windsor
e. Leopold Windsor
f. Louis Windsor
g. Prince Michael of Kent
h. Lord Frederick Windsor.

Gloucester only has one heir in each generation - the Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden.

It will be interesting to see if Harry and Meghan have a second son or whether Archie will be the only heir to Sussex in his generation.

Going back to Queen Victoria's youngest son - the Duke of Albany - there are still claimants to that title of course as there are to George III's son, the Duke of Cumberland, a title originally created by George III in 1799 with direct heirs still able to apply to have the title restored.
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 08-03-2020, 12:25 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Going back to Queen Victoria's youngest son - the Duke of Albany - there are still claimants to that title of course as there are to George III's son, the Duke of Cumberland, a title originally created by George III in 1799 with direct heirs still able to apply to have the title restored.
Could they really? Parliament has, to my knowledge, put a time limit of 100 years before a peerage in abeyance is thought of as extinct. While I know that it's a different situation is there really no time limit for the Hannover and Coburg descendants to claim back their British peerages?
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 08-03-2020, 01:02 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Could they really? Parliament has, to my knowledge, put a time limit of 100 years before a peerage in abeyance is thought of as extinct. While I know that it's a different situation is there really no time limit for the Hannover and Coburg descendants to claim back their British peerages?
Since the Title Deprivation Act of 1917 was never amended it stands as it was written. And in such, it never established a limit on how long the heirs would have to wait. This act would have to be amended, for the title to be given to someone else. They have not seen any reason to do so.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...vation1917.htm

Perhaps if there was a shortage of titles to use, and an excess of titles deprived, they may. But that is not the case.

It only applies to
Albany
Brunswick
Cumberland
Viscount Taaffe

Viscount Taaffe has already got extinct, did so when the last holder's son died without heirs in 1967. Brunswick is a German Duchy, so no need to recreate it as the British monarch wouldn't grant a German Duchy (even if Germany recognized titles any more).

I don't think that Albany and Cumberland are that much in demand/need that they would amend the act now so they could recreate them.
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 08-03-2020, 01:18 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Since the Title Deprivation Act of 1917 was never amended it stands as it was written. And in such, it never established a limit on how long the heirs would have to wait. This act would have to be amended, for the title to be given to someone else. They have not seen any reason to do so.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...vation1917.htm

Perhaps if there was a shortage of titles to use, and an excess of titles deprived, they may. But that is not the case.

It only applies to
Albany
Brunswick
Cumberland
Viscount Taaffe

Viscount Taaffe has already got extinct, did so when the last holder's son died without heirs in 1967. Brunswick is a German Duchy, so no need to recreate it as the British monarch wouldn't grant a German Duchy (even if Germany recognized titles any more).

I don't think that Albany and Cumberland are that much in demand/need that they would amend the act now so they could recreate them.
Thank you for your detailed reply. Brunswick was never a British peerage so therefore it's still a title used by the members of the House of Hannover.
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 08-03-2020, 02:35 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 671
In past centuries, beeing a duke was quite dangerous; if you got on the wrong side of the crown, you were in great danger not do die in your bed. And that was true as well as for royal or non royal dukedomes. And a lot of dukes and their sons where warfaring men- also that was a dangerous life. The Dukes of the north especially where created to go against the scotts; others served the crown or where a rebellios lot; others where in Irland and France etc.
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 08-03-2020, 03:27 AM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,827
For the title Duke of Clarence and Avondale, could Avondale just be used and thus you would have the title of Duke of Avondale?
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 08-03-2020, 05:18 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
For the title Duke of Clarence and Avondale, could Avondale just be used and thus you would have the title of Duke of Avondale?
The monarch can create whatever title they want. For instance there have been a Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh and a Duke of Kent and Strathearn while we today have the Dukes of Gloucester, Edinburgh and Kent.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 08-03-2020, 05:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
The monarch can create whatever title they want. For instance there have been a Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh and a Duke of Kent and Strathearn while we today have the Dukes of Gloucester, Edinburgh and Kent.
However traditionally they have stuck to titles that have been used before. That's why Harry and WIll got Sussex and Cambridge and it was unusual for Edwrd to get Earl of Wessex. But now there are hiers to royal dukedoms such as Kent and GLoucester so they may have to come up with other names...
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 08-03-2020, 08:03 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple View Post
There is a male heir to the dukedom of Albany, Hubertus, son of Ernst-Leopold, who in turn was a son of Johann Leopold, whose father was the last Duke of Albany Carl Eduard. In theory he can petition the British Crown for the restoration of the dignities removed in 1919.
When this post was written in 2005, Hubertus and the other Coburg males were not heirs to the dukedom of Albany.

Only male heirs born in wedlock may succeed to the dukedom, granted to Prince Leopold's "heirs male of his body lawfully begotten".

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...4977/page/2677

By the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, when a descendant of King George II (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) contracted marriage without the consent of the monarch, the marriage was null and void, and consequently the couple's children were illegitimate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/12/11/contents

For example, the Royal Marriages Act was followed when Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married in breach of it. His marriage was declared null and void, and the couple's son Augustus Frederick d'Este was, as an illegitimate child, unable to inherit the dukedom of Sussex.


Per the author of Queen Victoria's Descendants, no descendant of Prince Leopold's only son, Charles Edward, ever sought approval from the British monarch before marrying.

Therefore, so long as the Royal Marriages Act was maintained, the grandchildren of Charles Edward, and their heirs, were illegitimate in the United Kingdom and excluded from the line of succession to the dukedom of Albany.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Going back to Queen Victoria's youngest son - the Duke of Albany - there are still claimants to that title of course
That may or may not be true.

The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 did legitimize marriages which were null and void under the Royal Marriages Act, but only if "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it", per section 3, subsection 5 (a).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20

If it was not reasonable for Duke Charles Edward's descendants to have been unaware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them, then his heirs are still illegitimate in the United Kingdom and there are no heirs to the dukedom of Albany.
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 08-03-2020, 11:06 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Generally, for some reason, they seem to only have one son in each generation. The current Kent dukedom is a rarity with not only two sons for the first duke but two for the second as well. The Earl of St Andrews only has the one son but his brother, Lord Nicholas has 3 so there are plenty of heirs to Kent ...

a. The Earl of St Andrews
b. Baron Downpatrick
c. Lord Nicholas Windsor
d. Albert Windsor
e. Leopold Windsor
f. Louis Windsor
g. Prince Michael of Kent
h. Lord Frederick Windsor.

Gloucester only has one heir in each generation - the Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden.
At first I assume both the Dukedom of Gloucester and Kent seemed safe as both brother had two sons. However, the eldest son of the Duke of Gloucester died in a airplane crash before getting married and having sons of his own, so that's part of the reason why the current title is 'at risk' with just one heir for each generation. Richard's line was supposed to be the 'back-up' not the main line.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dukedom, royal dukes, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royal Titles Zina Royal Family of Brunei 25 08-22-2018 09:23 AM
Moroccan Royal Names and Titles bjanka66 Royal Family of Morocco 62 07-25-2018 04:50 PM
Royal, Princely and Comital Titles MAfan Royal Families of Italy 31 08-08-2016 10:55 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry british royals chittagong cht daisy diana princess of wales dragons duke of cambridge dutch dutch royals family life family tree future games haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill history house of glucksburg imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma kids movie king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mailing maxima mountbatten nepalese royal jewels norway norwegian royal family prince charles of luxembourg princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess laurentien princess ribha pronunciation queen louise random facts royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon spain speech spencer family taiwan thailand thai royal family tracts unsubscribe videos wedding gown wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×