Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 1: Ending 2022

[JR76]

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?

 

[Countessmeout]

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/britain/deprivation1917.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.

 

[JR76]

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/britain/deprivation1917.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.

 

[Nice Nofret]

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.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

For the title Duke of Clarence and Avondale, could Avondale just be used and thus you would have the title of Duke of Avondale?

 

[JR76]

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.

 

[Denville]

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...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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/issue/24977/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.

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[Kataryn]

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/issue/24977/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.





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.

Parallely to the laws creating the House of Windsor and depriving the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family of their titles because the head of the house had supported Germany in the war, the Landtag (parliament) of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha made any member of the house who did not support Germany losing their German titles. So it was a clear choice the duke made: he stuck with Germany.


And with the British inheritance rights gone, I guess they thought there is no need any longer to apply for consent to marriages. So I think it can be argued that the family was indeed unaware the Royal Marriages Act still applied to them.

 

[Heavs]

But these marriages were made by the ruler of an independant state in the beginning and these marriage did not need an okay by the British monarch. I know Ernst August of Hanover asked for permission but I always thought that a bit strange, to be honest. Did his sons do the same?

No his sons didn't because they didn't need to under the new Succession to the Crown act of 2013. They both married in 2017.

I assume Prince Ernst August did because he wanted to remain officially in the Succession to the British throne. His marriage would be considered perfectly legitimate for any other purpose except the succession even if he hadn't.

 

[victor1319]

I assume Prince Ernst August did because he wanted to remain officially in the Succession to the British throne. His marriage would be considered perfectly legitimate for any other purpose except the succession even if he hadn't.

The House of Hannover, like so many German noble families, had property in the German East, which became Russia, Poland and East-German-communist after the world war 2.

The Restitution is much easier, if one can claim to be British! So...

It is the same case somewhat for the House of Liechtenstein and the Czechs. Until today the Czechs do not recognize Liechstenstein, but treat the House of Liechtenstein as Germans, so, that they don't have to give back the vast riches of the Liechstensteins confiscated under the communist Benesch-regime.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No his sons didn't because they didn't need to under the new Succession to the Crown act of 2013. They both married in 2017.

I assume Prince Ernst August did because he wanted to remain officially in the Succession to the British throne. His marriage would be considered perfectly legitimate for any other purpose except the succession even if he hadn't.

Unfortunately, that wasn't true prior to 2015 (when the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 repealed the Royal Marriages Act).

His marriage would have been considered illegitimate, i.e. nonexistent, for all purposes under British law if he had not received permission to marry from the British Queen.

That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage, and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.

https://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html​

Note that not every foreigner was exempted from the requirement - only the issue of princesses who married into foreign families.

Parallely to the laws creating the House of Windsor and depriving the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family of their titles because the head of the house had supported Germany in the war, the Landtag (parliament) of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha made any member of the house who did not support Germany losing their German titles. [...] So I think it can be argued that the family was indeed unaware the Royal Marriages Act still applied to them.

I agree that argument could be made. That's why I say Albany "may" be available: It would need to be determined by the appropriate legal authorities whether the "unaware" exemption applied to them.

 

[Heavs]

Unfortunately, that wasn't true prior to 2015 (when the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 repealed the Royal Marriages Act).

His marriage would have been considered illegitimate, i.e. nonexistent, for all purposes under British law if he had not received permission to marry from the British Queen.

That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage, and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.

https://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html​

But it would have been considered legitimate in Germany or Monaco.

And to be honest I doubt even if a couple who were descendants of George II who were German by birth but were living in the UK would have officials saying "hang on this marriage certificate isn't valid in the UK because the Queen didn't give permission for your marriage." if asked to provide the documents for some reason.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But it would have been considered legitimate in Germany or Monaco.

Yes, I referred to "under British law" in my last post. It would have been considered legitimate in Germany or Monaco simply because British law does not apply to Germany or Monaco.

And to be honest I doubt even if a couple who were descendants of George II who were German by birth but were living in the UK would have officials saying "hang on this marriage certificate isn't valid in the UK because the Queen didn't give permission for your marriage." if asked to provide the documents for some reason.

I agree with you that it would probably not occur to officials processing tax returns or similar to verify whether a couple's marriage was legally valid. Still, the reality would remain that the marriage was invalid in UK law, and anyone who wished to take legal action on that basis would have that option. (For example, if the couple separated, I suppose one of them could refuse to pay maintenance ordered by a UK divorce court by pointing out that under UK law, they were never legally married.)

On that note, the Succession to the Crown Act did not legalize a marriage which was invalid under the Royal Marriages Act if someone already took action on the basis that the marriage was invalid.

(5) A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) 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, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

(6) Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.

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

 

[An Ard Ri]

I hadn't realized that The Dukedom of Sussex was only used once in the past prior to 2018 and went extinct upon the death of Prince Augustus Frederick in 1843.

That was a long time to stay dormant.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

When Prince William is The Prince of Wales and is Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, is the title of Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge considered a joint title?

 

[BriarRose]

I'm no expert, but my limited understanding is that the Dukedoms will not be joint, though William will be both the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Cambridge when Charles is King.

My very basic understanding is that for titles to be joint, they are granted together. For example, there is a joint title with the Prince of Wales, the Earl of Chester.

However, when the Queen passes away and Charles becomes King, William will automatically be styled as "His Royal Highness The Prince William, Duke Of Cornwall and Cambridge . . . " rather than "Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge." Stylistically, the Dukedoms would appear joint. (if that makes sense?)

(If William died before becoming King, George would become the Duke of Cambridge, but not the Duke of Cornwall, as he would never be the oldest son of the sovereign, despite being the heir apparent.)

(I could very well be wrong about all of this.)

 

[Iluvbertie]

Based on the precedence set in 1901 you are perfectly correct. For most of that year George V was known as The Duke of Cornwall and York.

 

[Durham]

Yes indeed. There's also examples in the peerage such as the Duke of Richmond & Gordon.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

BriarRose, It does make sense that that you excellently explained that the two Dukedoms: Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge, would appear joint as Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.

 

[royal-blue]

Now that Charles is the new Duke of Edinburgh, will he have to wait until he is king to pass the title onto Edward?

 

[Mbruno]

With the sad passing today of HRH The Prince Philip at the age of 99, the Prince of Wales has now succeeded to the ranks and titles of Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.

 

[Osipi]

Yes. When Charles becomes King, the title Duke of Edinburgh returns to the Crown to be recreated again. This is when Edward would be created the new Duke of Edinburgh according to his parent's wishes.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Now that Charles is the new Duke of Edinburgh, will he have to wait until he is king to pass the title onto Edward?

Charles inherits all of Philip's titles - Edinburgh, Merioneth and Greenwich.

They won't be used by Charles as he has more senior titles to use but like Chester or Carrick they are now Charles'.

He does inherit them but I don't expect him to use him. He may decide, to honour his father, by asking The Queen, if when using Cornwall and/or Rothesay he can use the joint title of 'Cornwall and Edinburgh' or 'Rothesay and Edinburgh'. I doubt that he would be he might ask to do so.

 

[Duke_of_Berkshire]

Curious if for the Earl of Wessex's birthday next March, we see him given the title of Duke of Edinburgh?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Curious if for the Earl of Wessex's birthday next March, we see him given the title of Duke of Edinburgh?

Unless the Queen herself dies before next March, that isn't gonna happen. The plan was always for him to receive the dukedom once it reverts to the Crown and it doesn't revert to the Crown until Charles ascends the throne.

 

[Osipi]

Curious if for the Earl of Wessex's birthday next March, we see him given the title of Duke of Edinburgh?

The title, Duke of Edinburgh, has passed to his eldest son, Charles. It will remain that way until it reverts to the Crown when Charles becomes King. Then, Charles can create Edward as the Duke of Edinburgh according to his parent's wishes.

 

[star84]

Curious if for the Earl of Wessex's birthday next March, we see him given the title of Duke of Edinburgh?

He can’t (unless The Queen dies before then) - the title is automatically inherited by Charles and now needs to wait until he becomes King and it can be recreated for Edward.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Curious if for the Earl of Wessex's birthday next March, we see him given the title of Duke of Edinburgh?

No. That title has passed to Charles.

The Letters Patent that created the Edinburgh title for Philip had the normal remainder - heirs male of the body lawfully begotten.

The announcement in 1999 was that when both the Queen and Philip have died the title would be recreated for Edward. First the title has to merge with the Crown and that won't happen until The Queen dies and Charles becomes King.