Talk:Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom

Title

I know that Royal Dukes do not use the corresponding number in their title; Prince Richard, The Duke of Gloucester, is actually the second Duke of this particular creation. Once the Dukedom becomes non-royal (with his son) would the numerical identifier be used? Would his son be "His Grace The 3rd Duke of Gloucester"?

71.42.40.10 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Prince Richard is the second Duke of Gloucester, it's just numerical identifiers are not generally used when addressing Peers in general. But if you refer to Debretts or Whitaker's Almanac you will see this particular Royal Duke entered as: 1928, Gloucester (2nd), Richard, Duke of Gloucester etc. And yes his son will be His Grace the 3rd Duke of Gloucester. Ds1994 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Precedence of Princes of the Blood Royal in England

For the record it should be noted that all Princes of the Blood Royal, whether they be Royal Dukes or not, take precedence over the two Archbishops in the Church of England and the Lord High Chancellor. They are placed directly after the children of Her Majesty The Queen. Ds1994 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Prince William relevance

Is it particularly relevant in mentioning the Queen having created the Prince William as Duke of Cambridge? The last two sentences as written in connection to each other aren't even factually (or grammatically) correct! "Sons of the sovereign are usually granted a dukedom upon marriage. On the occasion of his marriage, 29 April 2011, The Queen created Prince William Duke of Cambridge." First of all, William is not the Queen's son, but was her eldest grandson titled by courtsey. Second of all, her son Edward was created an earl (at his request), not a duke. Third of all, it should read "... The Queen created Prince William, as Duke of Cambridge." as someone could think the Queen literally CREATED Prince William, and he was ALREADY Duke of Cambridge. Sloppy grammar. 74.69.126.89 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say that Prince William is titled Duke of Cambridge "by courtesy". He hold the ducal title. Sons of peers who have not yet inherited any title use one of their father's junior titles as a "courtesy title". That is not the case with William.Eregli bob (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Lancaster

In the Duke of Lancaster article, it says that the Duke of Lancaster as a title is extinct. It only exists as a STYLE and as the Duchy of Lancaster, which does not technically require a Duke to have, or vis versa (the Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent do not have duchies as such in York, Gloucestershire or Kent). Also it says the Royal Dukes are entitled to the style of "His Royal Highness." The Queen holds the style Duke of Lancaster but is NEVER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.126.89 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal Dukedoms of the house of Windsor?

"Dukedoms created for the House of Windsor

In addition to the current Royal Dukedoms, the following dukedoms were created for Princes of the House of Windsor.

Duke of Clarence and Avondale, created for Prince Albert Victor, eldest son of Edward VII, who died unmarried and without issue."

OK, so Prince Albert Victor died 25 years before the House of Windsor began.Eregli bob (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Prince Edward

"At the same time as his creation as Earl of Wessex, it was announced that Prince Edward will be created Duke of Edinburgh on the death of both of his parents. The Dukedom of Edinburgh will become a non-royal dukedom with Prince Edward's descendants."

If Prince Philip passes away before the Queen, wouldn't Prince Charles( assuming he is still alive), inherit the title Duke of Edinburgh ? Wouldn't Charles then also have to die before Edward can be made Duke of Edinburgh ? Or would Charles' elevation to King extinguish the Dukedom of Edinburgh, therefore making it available for re-issue to Edward ? I guess that's why both of Edward's parents have to die, before he can get it.Eregli bob (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically yes. A title merges with the Crown either when the holder inherits the throne or if the monarch subsequently inherits the title. It is then available for recreation during that monarch's lifetime - the last such case I can think of was when George V created his second son Duke of York, a title he himself had had. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

precedence

William takes precedence over the Duke of York as the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. He is listed above him in the Court Circular and has replaced him as a senior member of the Royal Family. Change it. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dukes of Here and There

Ok. mea maxiuma culpa, I WP:BOLDly created individual articles for such double dukedoms as Gloucester and Edinburgh, based on the assertion that these were each not two dukedoms but one double-dukedom. When BlueMoonlet (talk · contribs) dropped in on my talk page to assert that the Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh were in fact Dukes of Gloucester and Dukes of Edinburgh, I went back to primary sources (the London Gazette) to see how the creations were gazetted. What I found doesn't seem conclusive to me, so I ask your opinions: considering the format in which other dual peerage titles created at similar times (linked below) were gazetted, does it seem likely that the royal double-dukes (bolded in the below links) were each given one or two dukedoms:

• "Duke of Ancaſter and Keſteven": "No. 5350". The London Gazette. 26 July 1715.
• "Duke of York and of Albany" (first Creation): "No. 5446". The London Gazette. 26 June 1716.
• "Duke of York and of Albany" (second Creation): "No. 9987". The London Gazette. 29 March 1760.
• "Baron Lovel and Holland": "No. 10205". The London Gazette. 1 May 1762.
• "Viſcount Dudley, and Ward": "No. 10306". The London Gazette. 19 April 1763.
• "Duke of Glouceſter and of Edinburgh": "No. 10470". The London Gazette. 13 November 1764.
• Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn: cannot find the gazette
• "Duke of York and of Albany" (third Creation): "No. 12598". The London Gazette. 23 November 1784.
• "Duke of Clarence and of St. Andrews": "No. 13097". The London Gazette. 16 May 1789.
• "Duke of Kent, and of Strathern","Duke of Cumberland, and of Teviotdale": "No. 15126". The London Gazette. 20 April 1799.
• "Duke of Buckingham and Chandos","Viscount of Newry and Morne","Earl of Dunraven and Mount Earl": "No. 17781". The London Gazette. 12 January 1822.
• "Baron Oranmore and Browne": "No. 19373". The London Gazette. 12 April 1836.
• "Baron Brougham and Vaux": "No. 22367". The London Gazette. 16 March 1860.
• "Duke of Connaught and of Strathearn": "No. 24098". The London Gazette. 26 May 1874.
• "Marquess of Dufferin and Ava": "No. 25874". The London Gazette. 13 November 1888.
• "Duke of Clarence and of Avondale": "No. 26055". The London Gazette. 24 May 1890.

Thanks DBD 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that both can happen. For example, the Earl of Oxford and Asquith was created with that double-barreled title specifically to avoid a conflict with the dormant Earl of Oxford. On the other hand, the Earl of Mar and Kellie is separately the Earl of Mar and the Earl of Kellie.

To me, the second "of" in the Gazette for the royal dukedoms (which you've put in bold) makes me think that they are more analogous to the latter. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

But not closely (analogous), since no one person was created Earl of Mar and of Kellie – rather an Erskine Earl of Mar inherited the Kellie earldom. I wonder whether there are any other instances of a person being created two peerages of the same grade on the same day. DBD 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My point was just that someone known as "Earl of A and B" might have been created with that as a single title (such as Oxford and Asquith), or they might hold "Earl of A" and "Earl of B" as separate titles (such as Mar and Kellie). You're right that it could be clearer in this case. I hope some more experienced royal watchers will weigh in. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think DBD is right and they are one single dukedom, but I don't think that means there needs to be a separate article and separate categories for these double titles. Robert Harley was created Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer on 23 May 1711 (as in the case of Asquith the double title was to distinguish it from the ancient Earldom of Oxford held by the Veres). The Complete Peerage (vol. X, p. 264) says that "this extraordinarily worded Earldom [...] is but one title and paid the fees as such. It somewhat resembles in form 'Earl Brooke and Earl of Warwick,' which, however, are two distinct dignities cr. at different dates". The London Gazette is a newspaper; the primary source for peerage titles would be the letters patent themselves. Opera hat (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DBD and others the C19 Royal Dukedoms created in a single patent are most likely a single title. While there are certainly titles with two separate peerages (examples above and below) I think we should default to the assumption of a single title (the normal practice) unless we have good grounds to depart from that belief. The LG is shall we say, not to be relied on, and does contain mistakes so I wouldn't read too much into the semantics of entries. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We should keep them seperate as for example in 1901 (from the time his father became king, until he was named prince of Wales), George V was known as Duke of Cornwall and York. Those were seperate titles, Duke of Cornwall and Duke of York. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In your example those are indisputably two separate titles. The issue is the double creation royal peerages where it is not unambiguously clear Garlicplanting (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've emailed the College of Arms asking whether they know where letters patent go "afterwards". DBD 17:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I always understood they went to the recipient but see if you get a reply.Garlicplanting (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The College replied months ago that they don't keep copies of LPs. I'll write to the Royal Archives. DBD 14:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Subsidiary titles

Can anyone please explain me why it is not custormary for princes to use their fahters' subsidiary titles, eg. why is HRH Prince George of Cambridge not referred to as HRH Prince George, Earl of Strathearn? Scn82 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it is unnecessary to do so. Subsidiary titles were taken up by heirs apparent of peers to spare them from appearing to be commoners or becoming confused with their younger brothers who were not expected to become peers. Since male-line grandsons of British monarchs are all princes, there is no need to distinguish them from lower-ranked persons, whether peers or commoners: they are distinguished among each other by use of their fathers' highest peerage as a territorial designation. The tradition of conferring dukedoms (and, recently, an earldom) upon the sons of sovereigns pre-dates the custom of attributing to them the prefixes of "prince" and Royal Highness. Because those royal dukedoms help distinguish princes and princesses who belong to different branches of the Royal Family (i.e., descend from different sons of the monarch), it remains useful for them to receive peerages, whereas future generations need no additional distinction. Indeed, since 1917 it has been the clear intent that after the third generation in descent from a sovereign, descendants are meant to "merge" into the commonalty, at least titularly, unless they are close in the order of succession to the throne (but increasing longevity recently prompted an extension of royal titulature to some of those descendants: Elizabeth II has lived long enough to see the birth of male-line great-grandchildren. But the 1917 letters patent only extended the princely title to the monarch's children, grandchildren, and "the first born son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". When the present Duchess of Cambridge, grand-daughter-in-law of the Queen, was pregnant with her first child, it must have dawned on Garter or someone at the Court of St. James's that if the Duchess's first child were female, she would not be born a princess under the 1917 decree. So the princely title was extended to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. This still means, of course, that if Elizabeth II outlives her eldest son Charles, Prince Harry's children will never be princes or Royal Highnesses). The monarchs' sons continue to receive their own peerages, while their sons' sons do not -- since those grandsons' male-line descendants will not continue to bear royal styles, instead taking the surname "Windsor" or "Mountbatten-Windsor", with the prefix of "Lord" or "Lady" or nothing. FactStraight (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Eldest sons of peers are commoners, but some of the higher-ranking ones are styled with one of their father's lesser titles as a courtesy. Princes do not need to use a courtesy title as they already have one of their own: prince. Prince Alastair of Connaught lost his princely title under the letters patent of 1917, and only then did he start to be styled Earl of Macduff by courtesy (one of his mother's titles; I don't know how he would have been known if she hadn't happened to be a peeress in her own right. Probably Lord Alastair Windsor). Opera hat (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And indeed princes who aren't peers are commoners (in the strict sense that there are only three categories: Monarch, Peer and Commoner)! BTW, I expect if Charles were to predecease Elizabeth, Harry (et al.) would be specially granted styles and precedence as appropriate. And as for George as Earl of Strathearn; William is called Strathearn north of the border (though the occasional practice of using lower Scots titles in Scotland post-dates the custom of not using subsidiaries for princes.) DBD 11:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was profound. Thanks a lot for your answers.Scn82 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mention Norfolk and Buckingham and Fife?

The Earldom of Norfolk was created for the son of a King, then passed through the female line, and became a Dukedom. Although it died out, it was then recreated for the descendants and heir-generals of the original Royal Dukes of Norfolk. Similarly, the Earldom of Buckingham was given to the son of a King, and his heir-general through the female line was later created Duke of Buckingham. (I'm talking about the Howard and Stafford Dukes, respectively by the way). Much later, in the 20th century, the husband of a princess was created Duke of Fife, and that Dukedom is still held as a Dukedom by their descendants today. Even if none of these are really royal dukedoms, the term "royal dukedom" is a little bit vague anyway, so shouldn't they be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh not a royal dukedom from 1805 to 1816?

Prince William Frederick was born "his highness" and was only granted the style "royal highness" in 1816, by special warrant, when he married. I assume this means that the dukedom of Gloucester and Edinburgh was not a royal dukedom during those years but was royal again from 1816. Can anyone confirm this? One way or another it would be useful to add a note in the article. Jaa101 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Dukes of the Blood Royal after 1917

The article says pretty much that the George V's 1917 changes in British royal family titles (their limitation) somehow (HOW!?? is my question) tied the status of peers of the Blood Royal as designated by still unrevoked Lord Chamberlain's order with such peers' right to the rank and style of a British prince. The successors of the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent would still be of the Blood Royal as they would be agnatically related by blood to the Sovereign and would still legally fit in the category created (designed) by the said LC's order. There was nothing about precedence nor status and rank of peerages in the 1917 Letters Patent. So in what way it tied the privileges of Royal peers as created by the LC's order to the possession of princely rank and title (it only deals with this matte and nothing else!)? Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

One more thing. I think about Alastair Windsor. How do we know that when he became the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, he held precedence at court among "ordinary" dukes and not before them as he was certainly a peer of the Blood Royal? Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Eight Dukedoms

There appear to be a number of RF members who would be entitled to a duchy. What would happen in the event that all eight duchies are already held?--93.149.231.250 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no limit to the number of duchies that can be created, e.g., the Duke of Windsor. Remember that there's nothing royal about the dukedoms themselves except that the current holder is royal. If the royal dukes father heirs and don't become the monarch then their dukedoms could in future be held by non-royals; that would prevent them from being created again for a new royal until their successions failed. Jaa101 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)