Author Topic: Dukedoms of the United Kingdom  (Read 17561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2009, 03:45:19 PM »
Perhaps they just find  it  superfluous  and unnecessary. The royal dukedoms are redundant and top heavy with meaningless  honorifics.  Why bother?  HRH and Prince [or Princess] should be enough for anyone one now.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 04:07:45 PM by Robert_Hall »

Alexander1917

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2009, 03:58:46 PM »
Sorry Alexander1917 I hope you do not think I was being sharp with you! I did not mean to be, as it is such an odd situation as far as I can tell with the Dukedom of Edinburgh!
Now that James Severn is around, I would have thought it even more pertinent for Prince Philip and the Queen to come to some more simple solution. I think surrendering the present creation in lieu of a new one would certainly makes things simpler!





Of course not..:-) you only told the story behind...

Offline RoyalWatcher

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2009, 04:07:35 PM »
No it will not. As when the title was created for Philip in 1947 it appears that it was issued with a standard remainder which means the present creation will pass to Charles in time. In 1999 when Edward married and the issue of a Dukedom was discussed, it was announced that when the Dukedom finally reverts to the crown, it will be re-created for Edward. If the Dukedom was created for life only for Philip, then my point is without point, as the Dukedom will revert to the Crown as soon as Philip dies, but this has never been clarified.

If, the standard remainder stands for example, Charles outlives his father but dies during his mother's lifetime the present creation of the Dukedom of Edinburgh will endure into a third generation, passing to William as senior heir male with any male issue he has and Harry and his male issue as remainder. Only when the incumbent holder of the Dukedom inherits the throne will the Dukedom revert to the crown and become eligible for recreation.

This is why I thought it would be simpler for Philip to surrender the present Dukedom and receive a new creation with special remainder to Edward and his heirs male now! Rather than wait for Charles to become King etc, or even William possibly!


 

That seems to be the most logical and straightforward thing to do. Excellent point, Toots.

Alexander1917

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2009, 04:24:38 PM »
The official website say "Born in 1964, he was known as Prince Edward until his marriage, when he was created The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn.

At the same time it was announced that His Royal Highness will be given the title Duke of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.
"

alixaannencova

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2009, 04:31:35 PM »
Thank goodness Alexander1917!

As to Robert's comments about Royal Dukedoms being superfluous! I tend to agree with this opinion as of the present climate in the UK! In previous ages, a Prince was generally given a Dukedom upon reaching his majority, as a tacit sign from the reigning monarch, that the former was of an age to start taking an active and responsible role in governance! Especially when large territories where attached to said Duchies! Later with the general dissolution of territorial Duchies, brought about most significantly after the Wars of the Roses, which did much to reveal the faults of granting territorials to collateral branches of the dynasty, Duchies were replaced as we have seen over time with 'landless' Dukedoms.
 
 Queen Victoria for example tended to delay giving out Dukedoms. The Dukedom of Albany was the last created for a younger son of a monarch not in 'direct' line to the throne, but whose male line post grandson descendants 'were' still going to hold the status of Prince/Princess and 'Highness', which was only limited by George V in 1917. Thereafter the status of Prince/Princess and Royal Highness ended with male line grandchildren and the status of Highness became obsolete altogether.

In 1917, I tend to think that the idea of Royal Dukedoms was regarded as a way of giving the senior male line descendants of the younger sons of monarchs, a suitable social rank for generations to come. This was subsequently born out in the grandchildren of Harry Gloucester and George Kent. As Albert Windsor is the first legitimate lineal male line descendant of George V not to have any title, this situation of 'commoner' members of the extended Windsor family will in time become a norm!  

I also wonder, that the decision to recreate the Dukedom of Edinburgh is not perhaps, fueled by a desire to continue it as a separate entity from the crown, and ensure its continuation in order to maintain its links to the Duke of Edinburgh Awards Scheme, in which Edward Wessex is now a principal player. This would, perhaps prove a fitting and satisfactory legacy to leave for the present Duke, who will go upstairs knowing that his youngest son and grandson will in due course carry on his personal charitable projects not only in person but in name too!




« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 04:45:12 PM by Toots »

Alexander1917

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2009, 04:55:38 PM »
Could be also a point of interest....but remember Nobel price is still existing ...

My opinion is, that it's one of the locical titels... Windsor has to bad memories...and Clearance.. after the E VII sons died so young....I don't know..

alixaannencova

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2009, 05:04:09 PM »
Dukedoms are one of my absolutely favourite subjects...both Royal and non Royal! They are an anachronism in this day and age, but I do find them fascinating! That is why I thought of starting a non royal Dukes thread in the 'Their World and Culture' thread, as I have heaps of stuff I could share here. In some instances, 'British' Dukes and their families lived lives just as fascinating as there Royal born contemporaries!

 

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2009, 05:15:24 PM »
That is for sure, Toots. Historically, as well a  some contemporay scandals,  the dukedoms are  indeed fascinating. But, they are history. Have no meaning in real contemporary life.  Not even seat in Lords!

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2009, 06:54:01 PM »
Dukedoms are one of my absolutely favourite subjects...both Royal and non Royal! They are an anachronism in this day and age, but I do find them fascinating! That is why I thought of starting a non royal Dukes thread in the 'Their World and Culture' thread, as I have heaps of stuff I could share here. In some instances, 'British' Dukes and their families lived lives just as fascinating as there Royal born contemporaries!

 

Toots, you've probably read it, but if not I'd highly recommend a book called 'the Dukes' by Brian Masters (I hope I've remembered the right name!). It's a history of all the non-royal dukedoms still extant in the UK, and several that recently became extinct. It's wittily written and full of fascinating information, if you're interested in dukedoms you'd love it!
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Duke of New Jersey

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2009, 07:27:14 PM »
Quote
Queen Victoria for example tended to delay giving out Dukedoms. The Dukedom of Albany was the last created for a younger son of a monarch not in 'direct' line to the throne, but whose male line post grandson descendants 'were' still going to hold the status of Prince/Princess and 'Highness', which was only limited by George V in 1917. Thereafter the status of Prince/Princess and Royal Highness ended with male line grandchildren and the status of Highness became obsolete altogether.


I'm sorry I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.  Weren't the Dukedoms of Kent & Gloucster created after the creation of the Dukedom of Albany?

-Duke of NJ

alixaannencova

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2009, 01:07:17 AM »
What I am trying to explain is that all lineal male descendants of Queen Victoria beyond the second generation would have had the expectation of the rank and style of Highness and Prince/Princess. An example of this was Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn who from birth was HH Prince Alastair of Connaught until 1917, as a lineal male line great grandson of a sovereign, after which he lost his royal rank altogether. The title and rank of Highness was abolished, and the rank of Prince/Princess and 'Royal Highness' was limited to the male line grand children 'only' of monarchs from 1917 onwards.

Subsequently the Kent and Gloucester Dukedoms negated the chances of younger sons of the Harry Gloucester and George Kent producing collateral branches in the male line enduring with the status of Highness and Prince/ Princess as could have happened in the case of the Albany Dukedom at the time of its creation in 1881, the last Dukedom created prior the limitations of 1917 whose holder was neither heir presumptive or heir assumptive.

As of 1917 and the Act of Deprivation, the descendants of the 2nd Duke of Albany may not bear the title of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland anyway. But I was just using the example of the Albany Dukedom to highlight the effects of the differences in status, future generations of the Royal Family descended in the male line would have endured between the creation of Albany in 1881 and those of Gloucester in 1928 and Kent in 1934. I hope this makes sense now?
   
Quote
Queen Victoria for example tended to delay giving out Dukedoms. The Dukedom of Albany was the last created for a younger son of a monarch not in 'direct' line to the throne, but whose male line post grandson descendants 'were' still going to hold the status of Prince/Princess and 'Highness', which was only limited by George V in 1917. Thereafter the status of Prince/Princess and Royal Highness ended with male line grandchildren and the status of Highness became obsolete altogether.


I'm sorry I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.  Weren't the Dukedoms of Kent & Gloucster created after the creation of the Dukedom of Albany?

-Duke of NJ

Offline Vecchiolarry

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2009, 03:03:58 PM »
Hi,

Yes Toots, it all made sense to me after the second reading.  I'm glad I don't have to sort this all out for The Queen & Country!!!

But, I will put in my suggestion for her anyway ----
I think William should be Duke of Cambridge and Harry sb. Duke of Sussex.
Why - because I like them and the titles sound nice...

So, someone can now alert The Queen - her problem is solved!!!  So say I...

Get right on that first thing Monday morning, will you Toots!!!

Larry
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 03:06:46 PM by Vecchiolarry »

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2009, 03:08:13 PM »
Hey, Larry
 What makes you think the Queen even has a problem with it? She may just think- sod it all, I am  through passing out dukedoms!

Offline Vecchiolarry

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2009, 03:37:32 PM »
Hi Robert,

Ha, ha, ha!!!
Well, maybe she isn't bothered by any of it but there's my suggestion, take it or leave it....

Maybe she should just label them all - One Potato; Two Potato; Three Potato; Four - any more??

Larry

alixaannencova

  • Guest
Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2009, 05:16:31 PM »
I quite agree Larry about the Cambridge and Sussex Dukedoms. In the case of the Cambridge Dukedom, the links to Queen Mary's uncle may have a certain appeal. I personally like the Sussex Dukedom because I think Augustus Sussex was actually a rather good man.

If William and Harry marry in the Queen's lifetime and produce children the issue of titles and status would once again become a point of debate!

As I read it, as of 1917 only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be entitled to the style and rank of Prince and Royal Highness. This would mean, if William and spouse had a daughter followed by a son, the daughter although elder would be styled Lady X Mountbatten Windsor from birth but her younger brother would be HRH Prince X of X or Wales, if William is not created a Duke himself. All other children born of such a marriage would be styled Lords X and Ladies X Mountbatten Windsor, until the acession of their grandfather, the Prince of Wales to the throne, when they would automatically become HRHs by right as lineal male line grandchildren of the sovereign. In the case of Harry marrying in the Queen's lifetime and producing children, all his children would be Lords X and Ladys X Mountbatten Windsor from birth until their grandfather succeeded to the throne, whereupon they too would become by right, Princes and Princess X of geographical designation of a possible Dukedom carried by Harry! These forms of preferred style would obviously be dependent on the parental proclivities too, as we have seen with the Wessex children, who do not carry the status of HRH, even though they do by 'right' of the 1917 Letters Patent, as male line grandchildren of the sovereign, rights which can only be removed by Letters Patent as far as I can tell.