I have no idea. I would imagine that, since it carries legal obligations, that it would require Parliament’s approval (which is not required for a Dukedom), but I don’t really know for sure.
Zev Steinhardt
Is duchy pronounced “ducky” or “dukey”? Or “Dutchy”?
I say Dutchy.
Semi-related question: how common is it for people outside of the royal family to hold several different titles at once? You know, Duke of this, Earl of that, and Count of the other, all in the same person.
www.m-w.com says \ˈdə-chē\
No problem. The irony in continuing to use the title is fairly obvious, of course.
Pretty common, obviously people from the same social strata tend to intermarry also quite often the person given the original title would already have a (lesser) title which would also be passed on to all other holders of the new title.
Just for example my second cousin’s children could (in theory only, as it would take 3 King Ralph-style castrophes including one that wiped out yours truly) succeed 1 Barony and 2 Baronetages which are currently held by 3 different people.
It’s relatively common, I’d say. Non-British royal families do it, too:
I heard he had 10,000 men.
They’re useless. All they do is march up and down the hill. Even when they’re only halfway up, they do neither this nor that.
IIRC the Queen can still grant certain knighthoods (Garter, Thistle, & Royal Victorian Order) to Australians. Those 3 orders are completely within her own discretion to give, unlike other orders which are granted on the advice of her ministers. I think dual British/Australian citizens are still eligible for knighthoods and peerages, but Canadians aren’t. In any even it’s highly unlikely the Queen would ever create a peerage referencing a local in another Commonwealth realm without asking for advice from it’s prime minister.
There is a set of titles which traditionally have been reserved for conferring on the members of the royal family. Several of them date to two of the largest sets of royal sons: the sons of Edward III, and the sons of George III. Since those two kings had so many sons, they had to come up with lots of titles, which then became traditional for members of the royal family.
Edward III’s various sons held these titles:
Duke of Cornwall, a special title for the monarch’s son.
Duke of Clarence
Duke of Lancaster (now permanently attached to the monarch)
Duke of York (now traditionally given to the monarch’s second son)
Duke of Gloucester.
George III’s sons held the titles of:
-
Cornwall
-
York
-
Clarence
-
Kent
-
Cumberland
-
Sussex
-
Cambridge.
Queen Victoria gave one of her sons the title of Duke of Edinburgh, which is now likely traditionally reserved for royals, since the Queen in turn gave that title to Prince Philip.
Of these titles, Cornwall, Lancaster, York, Gloucester, Kent, Edinburgh, and now Cambridge are in use. Clarence ad Sussex are available. Cumberland is in an odd situation, as there is a German descendant of George III who could claim the title, but has chosen not to do so.
As far as I know, every duke in the various peerages (England, Scotland, GB, UK) has at least one other title, and most of them have quite a few more. (I would guess that nearly every Earldom and Marquessate also comes with other stuff.)
Sometimes they’re multiple titles that were given to one person, sometimes a person who inherited one title was given a superior one for some reason, sometimes they came together through marriage. (In the latter two cases, though, each peerage descends according to its own letters patent, so it’s not a certainty that the two peerages will always be united. One can go extinct while the other goes to a distant line, or they could actually be split between two different people in the last case.)
No, that would be Napoleon.
Sometimes, the peer’s eldest son uses one as a “courtesy title,” as well.
No,no – Prince Andrew is straight.
She’s pretty old, but I think breasts have still been around longer than her.
What?
Oh titles. My bad.
j/k
In origin, most of the titles in use were originally territorial, relating to how William the Conqueror intended to govern England by feudal tenants, the earls being his major vassals and the barons his or their minor ones. (Dukes, Marquesses, and Viscounts were later additions to the British peerage.) The Earls of Northumberland and Cumberland were intended to repel the Scots, those of Chester, Gloucester, and Hereford the Welsh. Kent, Norfolk, Devon, Cornwall, Arundel/Surrey, Suffolk, York, and Lancaster were a loyal-to-royalty presence in those areas. As time went by, the titles and the their toponyms became far less connected, though some of them still had at least vague connections to where they were named for. The Duchy of Cornwall still owns substantial Cornish land; IIRC the Duke of Norfolk still owns Arundel Castle (a secondary title for him).
Especially for Royal dukes, the tendency is to recycle old names that are currently vacant, having reverted to the Crown. Other titles are often created with reference to the career or origins of the person being honored, e.g., Earl Mountbatten of Burma, the Dukes of Marlborough (the Churchills were from Marlborough and built Blenheim Palace there). Sometimes the surname (or occasionally a portmanteaued name) is turned into a title, e.g., Earl Grey, Earl Macmillan, or Sir Alan Brooke becoming Viscount Alanbrooke.