Discussion:
Queensberry questions
(too old to reply)
b***@yahoo.com
2006-09-09 16:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There a DUKE of Queensberry (Buccleuch and Queensberry) and there is a
MARQUESS of Queensberry but they are two separate people from what
seems like two separate families.

Questions:

1) Which one was created first?

2) Any reason for the use of the same place in the title?

3) Are there other examples of the same thing? (Only one I can think
of off hand is
Windsor (Duke of Windsor and Viscount Windsor)

Thanks.

Brooke
***@yahoo.com
Don Aitken
2006-09-09 17:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@yahoo.com
There a DUKE of Queensberry (Buccleuch and Queensberry) and there is a
MARQUESS of Queensberry but they are two separate people from what
seems like two separate families.
1) Which one was created first?
2) Any reason for the use of the same place in the title?
This is the story, taken from "Complete Peerage", of the descent of
the Queensberry and related titles (all in the peerage of Scotland,
unless otherwise stated).

William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".

The first duke's son, James, 2nd duke, received a novodamus of the
dukedom in 1706, redirecting it to "heirs of entail succeeding to the
Queensberry estate and descended from the body of the first earl." In
1708 he was created Duke of Dover in the peerage of Great Britain,
with special remainder to his son Charles and his successive younger
sons in tail male. The entail provided the same remainder for the
Queensberry dukedom, but with an ultimate remainder to the first
duke's heirs general.

The main purpose of all this was to exclude James's eldest son, also
James, known as "the cannibalistic idiot", who was kept in confinement
all his life, except for one occasion on which he escaped and killed
and ate a kitchen boy. The idiot did succeed to the earldom and
marquessate, which were unaffected by the novodamus; they passed to
Charles on his death in 1715.

On the death of Charles without issue in 1778 the dukedom of Dover
became extinct. The other titles all passed to the grandson of the
second son of the first duke, William Douglas, 3rd Earl of March and
Earl of Ruglen. He was 4th Duke of Queensberry, and, under the
nickname "old Q" a notorious figure in late 18th century London. He
died without legitimate issue in 1810.

In accordance with the novodamus and the entail, the dukedom then
passed to Henry Scott, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch since 1751, whose mother,
Jean, was the eldest daughter of the first Duke of Queensberry. His
descendants have held it since; the surname is now
Montagu-Douglas-Scott.

The marquessate and earldom passed to Charles Douglas,
great-great-great-grandson of the first earl, and therefore both his
"heir male of the body" and "heir male whatsoever" to the first
marquess, from whom he was not descended. His claim was accepted by
the HoL in 1812.
Post by b***@yahoo.com
3) Are there other examples of the same thing? (Only one I can think
of off hand is
Windsor (Duke of Windsor and Viscount Windsor)
There have been quite a number, mostly in different peerages - Earls
of Arran in Scotland and Ireland, Earls of March in England and
Scotland, and so on. Exactly identical titles in the *same* peerage
occur only where titles originally held together have been separated
by different remainders, as in the Queensberry case, or when one was
created at a time when the other was dormant, presumed extinct, as in
the case of Devon/Devonshire, and a number of others.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
2006-09-09 20:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Don Aitken a écrit :

<...>
Post by Don Aitken
This is the story, taken from "Complete Peerage"
<...>
Post by Don Aitken
The main purpose of all this was to exclude James's eldest son, also
James, known as "the cannibalistic idiot", who was kept in confinement
all his life, except for one occasion on which he escaped and killed
and ate a kitchen boy.
<...>

I can not imagine an other great scholarly work than the bible of the
British Peerage to put such weird anecdote in the form of a serious and
erudite footnote!
rc
2006-09-09 21:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".
Thanks Don, I am still confused, but as long as the folks involved
understand it, why do I have to?

I understand the first, Heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas
and Heirs male of his body, but what does Heirs male whatsoever mean?

RC
Mario Glibic
2006-09-09 21:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rc
Post by Don Aitken
William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".
Thanks Don, I am still confused, but as long as the folks involved
understand it, why do I have to?
I understand the first, Heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas
and Heirs male of his body, but what does Heirs male whatsoever mean?
See here: http://tinyurl.co.uk/nd5b

Mario
Don Aitken
2006-09-09 21:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rc
Post by Don Aitken
William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".
Thanks Don, I am still confused, but as long as the folks involved
understand it, why do I have to?
I understand the first, Heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas
and Heirs male of his body, but what does Heirs male whatsoever mean?
Heirs of the body have to be descended from the grantee, while heirs
whatsoever don't. The 5th Marquess of Queensberry was "heir male
whatsoever" of the 1st Marquess by virtue of being descended, not from
him, but from his father. As long as a collateral can be traced,
however remote, there is an "heir whatsoever".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
rc
2006-09-10 03:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Don Aitken wrote:
As long as a collateral can be traced,
Post by Don Aitken
however remote, there is an "heir whatsoever".
Thanks Don and Mario, I think I've got it!

RC
Stan Brown
2006-09-10 14:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:52:18 +0100 from Don Aitken <don-
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Don Aitken
William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".
Heirs of the body have to be descended from the grantee, while heirs
whatsoever don't. The 5th Marquess of Queensberry was "heir male
whatsoever" of the 1st Marquess by virtue of being descended, not from
him, but from his father. As long as a collateral can be traced,
however remote, there is an "heir whatsoever".
What about heirs by adoption? Do they count as "heirs whatsoever"?
Did they in 1682?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Don Aitken
2006-09-10 15:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:57:38 -0400, Stan Brown
Post by Stan Brown
Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:52:18 +0100 from Don Aitken <don-
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Don Aitken
William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".
Heirs of the body have to be descended from the grantee, while heirs
whatsoever don't. The 5th Marquess of Queensberry was "heir male
whatsoever" of the 1st Marquess by virtue of being descended, not from
him, but from his father. As long as a collateral can be traced,
however remote, there is an "heir whatsoever".
What about heirs by adoption? Do they count as "heirs whatsoever"?
Did they in 1682?
No, and no. An heir of any kind had to be "of the blood".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Stan Brown
2006-09-10 21:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:02:41 +0100 from Don Aitken <don-
Post by Don Aitken
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:57:38 -0400, Stan Brown
Post by Stan Brown
What about heirs by adoption? Do they count as "heirs whatsoever"?
Did they in 1682?
No, and no. An heir of any kind had to be "of the blood".
Thanks.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Donald Renouf
2006-09-11 16:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
Heirs of the body have to be descended from the grantee, while heirs
whatsoever don't. The 5th Marquess of Queensberry was "heir male
whatsoever" of the 1st Marquess by virtue of being descended, not from
him, but from his father. As long as a collateral can be traced,
however remote, there is an "heir whatsoever".
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that heirs whatsoever are
differently defined in English and Scottish law. In Scottish law after
the extinction of an ancestor's issue, the claim passes to the issue of
his *younger* brothers before that of his elder brothers. In English
law it's the other way around: elder brothers before younger brothers.
So the heir male whatsoever to the present Duke of York would be the
Prince of Wales under English law and the Earl of Wessex under Scottish
law.

At least, I think that's right. Don't quote me on it.
Don Aitken
2006-09-12 00:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Donald Renouf
Post by Don Aitken
Heirs of the body have to be descended from the grantee, while heirs
whatsoever don't. The 5th Marquess of Queensberry was "heir male
whatsoever" of the 1st Marquess by virtue of being descended, not from
him, but from his father. As long as a collateral can be traced,
however remote, there is an "heir whatsoever".
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that heirs whatsoever are
differently defined in English and Scottish law. In Scottish law after
the extinction of an ancestor's issue, the claim passes to the issue of
his *younger* brothers before that of his elder brothers. In English
law it's the other way around: elder brothers before younger brothers.
So the heir male whatsoever to the present Duke of York would be the
Prince of Wales under English law and the Earl of Wessex under Scottish
law.
At least, I think that's right. Don't quote me on it.
I think that's right. But how you identify the heir whatsoever without
the "male", either in England or Scotland, I don't know. There are
several peerages with such a remainder, or with an ultimate remainder
to "heirs female". WAR would know.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
2006-09-12 18:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Donald Renouf
Post by Don Aitken
Heirs of the body have to be descended from the grantee, while heirs
whatsoever don't. The 5th Marquess of Queensberry was "heir male
whatsoever" of the 1st Marquess by virtue of being descended, not from
him, but from his father. As long as a collateral can be traced,
however remote, there is an "heir whatsoever".
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that heirs whatsoever are
differently defined in English and Scottish law. In Scottish law after
the extinction of an ancestor's issue, the claim passes to the issue of
his *younger* brothers before that of his elder brothers. In English
law it's the other way around: elder brothers before younger brothers.
So the heir male whatsoever to the present Duke of York would be the
Prince of Wales under English law and the Earl of Wessex under Scottish
law.
Are we talking about general property inheritance here or
spercifically about the inheritance of titles?

The Dukedom of York was created with the usual "heirs male of his
body" clause.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
Donald Renouf
2006-09-13 18:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
I think that's right. But how you identify the heir whatsoever without
the "male", either in England or Scotland, I don't know. There are
several peerages with such a remainder, or with an ultimate remainder
to "heirs female". WAR would know.
In Scotland, issue of: next youngest brother, then other younger
brothers in order of primogeniture, then eldest brothers in order of
primogeniture, then sisters in order of primogeniture.

In England, issue of: eldest brother, then other brothers in order of
primogeniture, then if it goes to daughters' issue it's co-heirs
anyway.

Mr Cracroft-Brennan - I know the Dukedom of York has the ordinary
remainder; I was just using an example of three brothers with whose
identity people would be immediately familiar.
A. Gwilliam
2006-09-10 15:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".
As someone who's quite clueless about these things (I mean me, not
you!), could you explain what the reason is for a "promoted" peer to:
a. retain their earlier title; and
b. for the "rules" of the various titles to differ?

It would seem simpler to have a mechanism whereby, say, an earl was
created a marquess by a substitution of rank!
--
A. Gwilliam
To e-mail me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"
Don Aitken
2006-09-10 16:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10 Sep 2006 15:48:10 GMT, "A. Gwilliam"
Post by A. Gwilliam
Post by Don Aitken
William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".
As someone who's quite clueless about these things (I mean me, not
a. retain their earlier title; and
b. for the "rules" of the various titles to differ?
It would seem simpler to have a mechanism whereby, say, an earl was
created a marquess by a substitution of rank!
It would be simpler, but it has never been what happens. Or, not in
normal cases. There were occasional examples in the medieval period of
peers surrendering one title on receiving another, but that ceased to
be possible in England by the 16th century, and in Scotland by the
time of the Union. So long as there are eligible heirs, a peerage
cannot be brought to an end except by Act of Parliament, and a new
title is always in addition rather than in substitution.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Gary Holtzman
2006-09-10 20:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A. Gwilliam
As someone who's quite clueless about these things (I mean me, not
a. retain their earlier title; and
b. for the "rules" of the various titles to differ?
It would seem simpler to have a mechanism whereby, say, an earl was
created a marquess by a substitution of rank!
Not at all; a peer retains any previous titles when he gets a new one. The only
way to lose them is to be attainted (not much done in recent centuries) or to
succeed to the throne, in which case the titles merge with the crown. This is
why most dukes (the highest grade of the peerage) have a whole collection of
titles which their ancestors accumulated over the generations as they rose through
the peerage.
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Stan Brown
2006-09-10 22:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary Holtzman
Not at all; a peer retains any previous titles when he gets a new
one. The only way to lose them is to be attainted (not much done in
recent centuries) or to succeed to the throne, in which case the
titles merge with the crown. This is why most dukes (the highest
grade of the peerage) have a whole collection of titles which their
ancestors accumulated over the generations as they rose through the
peerage.
And it is customary for any commoner who is created a peer of high
grade to be given subsidiary titles. I don't know if this is the
motivation, but the effect is that his eldest son and grandson have
courtesy titles to use, just like the heirs of peers who "came up
through the ranks".
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Louis Epstein
2006-12-12 03:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A. Gwilliam <***@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
: Don Aitken wrote:
:
:> William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
:> remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
:> His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
:> Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
:> Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
:> body".
:
: As someone who's quite clueless about these things (I mean me, not
: you!), could you explain what the reason is for a "promoted" peer to:
: a. retain their earlier title; and
: b. for the "rules" of the various titles to differ?
:
: It would seem simpler to have a mechanism whereby, say, an earl was
: created a marquess by a substitution of rank!

Hardly fair...if the promoted peer dies without heirs,
descendants of the holders of the earlier peerage of lower
rank should retain their right to succeed to it,that couldn't
happen if it had been extinguished thanks to their cousin's
promotion!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David Hoffman
2018-05-15 07:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
When in 1810 4th Duke died who were people in the line of succession for the dukedom? Are Earls of Wemmys and March, and Marques of Queensberry stil in line of succession to this title?
b***@yahoo.com
2006-09-10 16:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
Post by b***@yahoo.com
There a DUKE of Queensberry (Buccleuch and Queensberry) and there is a
MARQUESS of Queensberry but they are two separate people from what
seems like two separate families.
1) Which one was created first?
2) Any reason for the use of the same place in the title?
This is the story, taken from "Complete Peerage", of the descent of
the Queensberry and related titles (all in the peerage of Scotland,
unless otherwise stated).
William Douglas was created Earl of Queensberry in 1633, with
remainder "to his heirs male bearing the name and arms of Douglas".
His grandson William, the third earl, was created Marquess of
Queensberry in 1682, with remainder to "heirs male whatsoever", and
Duke of Queensberry in 1684, with remainder to "heirs male of his
body".
The first duke's son, James, 2nd duke, received a novodamus of the
dukedom in 1706, redirecting it to "heirs of entail succeeding to the
Queensberry estate and descended from the body of the first earl." In
1708 he was created Duke of Dover in the peerage of Great Britain,
with special remainder to his son Charles and his successive younger
sons in tail male. The entail provided the same remainder for the
Queensberry dukedom, but with an ultimate remainder to the first
duke's heirs general.
The main purpose of all this was to exclude James's eldest son, also
James, known as "the cannibalistic idiot", who was kept in confinement
all his life, except for one occasion on which he escaped and killed
and ate a kitchen boy. The idiot did succeed to the earldom and
marquessate, which were unaffected by the novodamus; they passed to
Charles on his death in 1715.
On the death of Charles without issue in 1778 the dukedom of Dover
became extinct. The other titles all passed to the grandson of the
second son of the first duke, William Douglas, 3rd Earl of March and
Earl of Ruglen. He was 4th Duke of Queensberry, and, under the
nickname "old Q" a notorious figure in late 18th century London. He
died without legitimate issue in 1810.
In accordance with the novodamus and the entail, the dukedom then
passed to Henry Scott, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch since 1751, whose mother,
Jean, was the eldest daughter of the first Duke of Queensberry. His
descendants have held it since; the surname is now
Montagu-Douglas-Scott.
The marquessate and earldom passed to Charles Douglas,
great-great-great-grandson of the first earl, and therefore both his
"heir male of the body" and "heir male whatsoever" to the first
marquess, from whom he was not descended. His claim was accepted by
the HoL in 1812.
Post by b***@yahoo.com
3) Are there other examples of the same thing? (Only one I can think
of off hand is
Windsor (Duke of Windsor and Viscount Windsor)
There have been quite a number, mostly in different peerages - Earls
of Arran in Scotland and Ireland, Earls of March in England and
Scotland, and so on. Exactly identical titles in the *same* peerage
occur only where titles originally held together have been separated
by different remainders, as in the Queensberry case, or when one was
created at a time when the other was dormant, presumed extinct, as in
the case of Devon/Devonshire, and a number of others.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Whew! That's more information than I expected! Many thanks, Don and
Mario, for your help!

Brooke
***@yahoo.com
Mario Glibic
2006-09-09 18:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@yahoo.com
There a DUKE of Queensberry (Buccleuch and Queensberry) and there is a
MARQUESS of Queensberry but they are two separate people from what
seems like two separate families.
1) Which one was created first?
Both titles were created for William Douglas, 3rd Earl of Queensberry,
Marquessate in 1682, Dukedom in 1684. However, the titles had different
remainders, Marquessate to heirs male whatsoever, and Dukedom to heirs male of
his body (which was later changed to heirs male or female descended from the
1st Earl of Queensberry).

When the 4th Duke died, the male line descended from the 1st Duke and Marquess
was extinct; Marquessate then passed to a male line descendant of the 1st Earl
of Queensberry, while Dukedom went to the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, descended
from the 2nd Duke of Queensberry through female line.
Post by b***@yahoo.com
2) Any reason for the use of the same place in the title?
It's not rare that a peer was given higher rank in peerage, with the the title
he already had. The Duke of Wellington is also Marquess of Wellington, Earl of
Wellington, and Viscount Wellington.


Mario
barrassie
2006-09-09 19:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mario Glibic
Post by b***@yahoo.com
There a DUKE of Queensberry (Buccleuch and Queensberry) and there is a
MARQUESS of Queensberry but they are two separate people from what
seems like two separate families.
1) Which one was created first?
Both titles were created for William Douglas, 3rd Earl of Queensberry,
Marquessate in 1682, Dukedom in 1684. However, the titles had different
remainders, Marquessate to heirs male whatsoever, and Dukedom to heirs male of
his body (which was later changed to heirs male or female descended from the
1st Earl of Queensberry).
When the 4th Duke died, the male line descended from the 1st Duke and Marquess
was extinct; Marquessate then passed to a male line descendant of the 1st Earl
of Queensberry, while Dukedom went to the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, descended
from the 2nd Duke of Queensberry through female line.
Post by b***@yahoo.com
2) Any reason for the use of the same place in the title?
It's not rare that a peer was given higher rank in peerage, with the the title
he already had. The Duke of Wellington is also Marquess of Wellington, Earl of
Wellington, and Viscount Wellington.
Mario
There is another similar case, there are two Dukedoms of Argyll one of
Scotland 1701 and one UK 1892.
Presently these are held by the same person, but it would be possible
for them to be held by two different persons .
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
sionevar
2006-09-09 22:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by barrassie
There is another similar case, there are two Dukedoms of Argyll one of
Scotland 1701 and one UK 1892.
There are also two earldoms of Mar, held by two different people.
Hovite
2006-09-10 21:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@yahoo.com
3) Are there other examples of the same thing? (Only one I can think
of off hand is
Windsor (Duke of Windsor and Viscount Windsor)
There are two Earldoms of Mar.
m***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-09-11 19:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hovite
Post by b***@yahoo.com
3) Are there other examples of the same thing? (Only one I can think
of off hand is
Windsor (Duke of Windsor and Viscount Windsor)
There are two Earldoms of Mar.
Also the Dukedom and Earldom of Sutherland, once held simultaneously,
are now separated- the former was limited to the male line, the latter
can go through the female line.
Loading...