How does the British Sovereign choose nobility titles that are given to non-nobles? When Prince Philip married then-Princess Elizabeth, for example, he was on the eve of the wedding appointed Duke of Edinburgh by then-King George, Elizabeth’s father. But where did they get the duchy from? If there had been a Duke of Edinburgh before, Philip wouldn’t have got the title, so the duchy must have been vacant. For me, there are two possibilities:
a) There was no Duke of Edinburgh before, and has never been, so the King invented that post and gave the newly-created duchy to his daughter’s husband.
b) The King of England has more than just that one title. There are plenty of other titles that belong to him, including Earls, Barons, and Dukes, one of which was the title of a Duke of Edinburgh, and he gave that title he personally owned (independently from the Royal throne) to Philip.
Related Question: When Philip and Elizabeth die, will his son Charles, additionally to the throne he’ll inherit from his mother, also inherit the duchy from his father? Or is that post not hereditary?
Similarily, there are other people who got a title without inheriting it. Where did the monarch take those posts from, and are they hereditary for all future times?
(Note: This is not about knighting a person a “Sir”; those do, AFAIK, not get a title like “Duke/Earl/whatever of any-geographical-name”.)
Another related questions: British nobles do, of course, not have any real administrative power. But is there something like a territorial unit that formally is his? Is the Earl of xy really the formal head of the county of xy, or is there no correspondence between nobility titles and administrative areas?
Something in the middle. Background on the Dukes of Edinburgh:
http://www.fortunecity.com/millennium/aylesbury/90/edinburgh.htm
Sometimes they create new titles. Sometimes they are vacant, as in the case of “Duke of Edinburgh”. Victoria created the title of Earl of Beaconsfield so she could bestow it upon Disraeli.
My understanding is that the sovereign, as fountain of honour, can create new titles. So it’s not like there’s a store of titles that she personally has and transfers from herself to the new title-holder. She can make up entirely new ones. (There are titles which are traditionally held by the monarch or the heir apparent: Cornwall, Lord of the Isles, Renfrew, and so on.)
With regards to the title of Duke of Edinburgh, I believe that when the Queen created Prince Edward the Earl of Wessex on his wedding, she further provided that on the death of Prince Philip, the Edinburgh title will descend to Prince Edward.
Originally, titles of nobility were always hereditary, normally based on male primogeniture, although there were some exceptional titles that could descend through the female line because of the terms of the original grant. However, around 1960, Parliament created the category of “life peers,” which are non-hereditary. Most peerages now given out are life peers, although I believe Maggie Thatcher’s title is hereditary.
There’s no real connexion between the name of the title and a particular locality. Originally in feudal times, the title reflected where the person lived and had their power base, but that’s long since over. (I believe that “duchy” is not used to descrive English dukes; it’s a “dukedom.” The difference is that a “duchy” is an actual territorial division ruled by a duke - I don’t know if there still are any duchies in Europe - Leichenstein, maybe?)
Note that some titles, normally the names of counties, are by custom only conferred on Royal Dukes: York, Gloucester, Clarence, Cambridge, Kent, Sussex, Cumberland, and so on, although there are some that are held by non-royals (e.g. - the Duke of Norfolk).
If memory serves, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven (whose arms you can have a look at if you wish) is a life peer, but her husband’s title of Baronet (which is not a peerage title) is hereditary.
I am not a royalist (I think the whole hereditary principle is pernicious and causes Britain too many problems that people just don’t understand) but I do have some information on the subject.
List of all her Victoria’s children here:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/victoria.htm
Most of her children married into other royal families of Europe: Edward VII (born 1841, married Alexandra, daughter of Christian IX of Denmark); Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh and of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (born 1844, married Marie of Russia); Arthur, Duke of Connaught (born 1850, married Louise Margaret of Prussia); Leopold, Duke of Albany (born 1853, married Helen of Waldeck-Pyrmont); Victoria, Princess Royal (born 1840, married Friedrich III, German Emperor); Alice (born 1843, married Ludwig IV, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine); Helena (born 1846, married Christian of Schleswig-Holstein); Louise (born 1848, married John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll); Beatrice (born 1857, married Henry of Battenberg).
Edward VII’s sons were Albert Victor Christian Duke of Clarence (a person of limited intellect and a sexual philanderer) George who became George V and John Alexander who died in infancy. I can’t find out which dukedom if any he held but assume that he was Prince of Wales from the death of his brother, and so, Duke of Cornwall.
George V had five children: King Edward VIII; Albert, Duke of York, later King George VI (upon Edward’s abdication); the Duke of Gloucester; the Duke of Kent; and Mary, Countess of Harewood.
George VI had no male offspring.
So the answer is- many titles have been conferred in the past 150 years. Most of these were seen as appropriate to royal dukedoms, but there are no rules.
Expectations- Prince of Wales means heir apparent, Duke of York to the second son if vacant (and will probably be on the death of Andrew who has two daughters- so going to Prince Harry.)
Before Prince Edward was made Earl of Essex there was much speculation, but IIRC no-one predicted the Earl of Essex Duke of Edinburgh connection. Clarence, Albany Connaught and others were suggested by many different commentators.
As usual with our ‘heritage’, most of it was made up last century or last week ;). There are no firm rules and the monarchy can make it up as they go along.
BTW, There are two Duchies- Cornwall and Lancaster- that are referred to as such. I buy my plants from the Duchy of Cornwall Nursery, not because of its royal connections, but because its good value.
BTW 2, Philip was not happy to remain Duke of Edinburgh at Lizzie 2’s accession, he wanted to be King, or at least Consort in a more formal sense; as he said: ‘Just a bloody cipher in history.’
Prince Edward is the Earl of Wessex. A very informative post Pjen…you put royalists like myself to shame;)
On genealogical charts, the women tend to be portrayed to the right of their partners. The duchy’s therefore tend to be passed on the left hand side.
You obviously have strong memories of bad british music in the 80’s.
bryanmaguire; got it in one, Sir.
Now if we just knew what a duchy was 
To answer the first part of the OP, it is not the sovereign who decides the territorial designation of peerage titles. In most cases it is the recipient who gets to decide. Take two immediately topical cases. Earlier this year Dale Campbell-Savours and Thomas Pendry were granted life baronies (both were politicians retiring from the House of Commons). This morning it was made public (‘gazetted’) that they had chosen the titles of Baron Campbell-Savours of Allerdale and Baron Pendry of Stalybridge. Announcements to this effect appeared in the London Gazette and some British newspapers. Both will have chosen Allerdale and Stalybridge themselves after discussions with the Garter King-of-Arms. I assume that each has some personal or sentimental connection with those places.
There are no firm rules regarding the choices, although there are a number of informal conventions. There is a strong sense that the placename should reflect the rank of the peerage. County name are usually restricted to earldoms and higher (think count/county) and can be given to non-royals. Anglesey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cardigan, Devonshire, Dorset, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Northumberland, Powys, Rutland, Somerset, Suffolk, Westmorland and Wiltshire are or have been used in this way. Peers are discouraged from choosing the names of cities for lesser peerages and the names of corporate towns can only be used if the corporation gives its approval. Potential confusions with existing titles are also discouraged and new peers cannot request titles similar to ones which are thought to be in abeyance.
Placenames which have been used in the past for peerages for members of the royal family are usually reserved for that purpose in the future. A number of titles (Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay) are always given to the monarch’s eldest surviving son, the dukedom of York is reserved for the monarch’s second son and the dukedom of Clarence is usually given to the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. New royal titles can also be created. The obvious example of this is the earldom of Wessex which Prince Edward allegedly chose because it was used for the Colin Firth character in Shakespeare in Love. It was indeed made known at that time that the dukedom of Edinburgh will pass to him once his father dies. (Technically, the dukedom will expire with Prince Philip and a new grant will then be issued to Edward.)
A peerage now confers no administrative power whatsoever on its holder, although all life peers and some hereditary peers do retain the right to sit in the House of Lords.
Contrary to what Pjen believes, the law relating to peerage titles is one aspect of British ‘heritage’ which does date back centuries.
Where’s Coldfire when you need him? I’m sure he could explain.
[sub]I rather fear we’re lowering the tone[/sub]
[sub]Quite. Lets just back away slowly and hope nobody noticed[/sub]
In England, there are the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. I’m a bit shaky on the details, but I believe that both belong to the Prince of Wales. He personally receives the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall whereas the revenue from the Duchy of Lancaster belongs to the State. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is (or was) a Government Minister with a rag-bag or miscellaneous responsibilities.
Always nice to see old Labour stalwards standing by their democratic principles.
[sub]Agreed. Slowly does it.[/sub]
[sub]I dont think they’ve noticed yet. Keep on going. remember the Dunkirk spirit. Stiff upper lip and all that.[/sub]
[sub]That’s because I’m moving very, very, slowly. And bowing a lot.[/sub]
[sub]bowings good. Should have thought of that myself. Oh look, we’re nearly in MPSIMS[/sub]
I am not denying that there are laws relating to peerages. However, when looked at closely they are pragmatic in the extreme and can be changed at will. cf. The Earl of Wessex- Wessex didn’t really exist until Thomas Hardy (except as an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, but is now suitable as a title. Many genealogists were certain that law and convention would settle one of the historic royal dukedoms on Edward, but it did not happen.
To understand the British constitution, it is important first to understand that the whole thing is based on ‘conventions’. These are never clearly stated, and always open to compromise.
Questions (basic questions):
1/ Is the British Monarchy necessarily hereditary?
2/ Does parliament have the power to ignore the monarch?
3/ Does parliament have the power to over-rule the judiciary?
4/ Can the monarch act without the consent of parliament?
5/ Can a person married to a divorcee ascend to the throne?
6/ Would a Roman Cathlic Monarch be allowed to ascend?
7/ Is the monarch subject to the law?
8/ Is the monarch liable to UK taxes?
9/ Who does the monarch’s wealth belong to- crown or country?
10/ What happens when a monarch abdicates?
Clear answers to the above from all please, but particularly from monarchists.
[sub]Yup, nearly there. If we get caught, remember; name, rank, serial number, and it’s been nice knowing you, old chap[/sub]
[sub]d’you think nobility can’t read subscript? Excellent! I’M INVISIBLE![/sub]