Earls of Devon and Dukes of Devonshire

[Ashley Rovira]

Are the present Dukes of Devonshire descended from the Earls of Devon?

Ashley Rovira
***@mville.edu

[Gillian White]

Post by Ashley Rovira
Are the present Dukes of Devonshire descended from the Earls of Devon?

Not directly, although it is entirely possible that they have some common
ancestors.

The earldom of Devon is a very interesting peerage, in that it was created
with limitation to heirs male, but not heirs male of the body. It was
created for Edward Courtenay in 1553, and became extinct three years later.
However, in 1831 it was successfully claimed by a man whose descent was from
an ancestor living 200 years before the 1553 creation. This man was a male
heir of Edward Courtenay, but not a male heir of the body. The 18th Earl of
Devon is the current bearer of the title.

The dukedom and earldom of Devonshire are held by the Cavendish family. The
earldom was created in 1618 for William Cavendish, Bess of Hardwick's second
son. The dukedom was created in 1694 for the 4th earl.

However, the peerages are often confused. The Letters Patent for the earldom
and dukedom of Devonshire apparently say 'Comes Devon' and 'Dux Devon' only.
The 'shire' was added later by common consent, specifically to avoid
confusion with the other Devon title.

Gillian

[Don Aitken]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:45:14 GMT, "Gillian White"

Post by Gillian White

Post by Ashley Rovira
Are the present Dukes of Devonshire descended from the Earls of Devon?

Not directly, although it is entirely possible that they have some common
ancestors.
The earldom of Devon is a very interesting peerage, in that it was created
with limitation to heirs male, but not heirs male of the body. It was
created for Edward Courtenay in 1553, and became extinct three years later.
However, in 1831 it was successfully claimed by a man whose descent was from
an ancestor living 200 years before the 1553 creation. This man was a male
heir of Edward Courtenay, but not a male heir of the body. The 18th Earl of
Devon is the current bearer of the title.

For an interesting account of the history of the English Courtenays,
see http://www.patpnyc.com/exeter.htm published in 1892. The author is
somewhat kinder to the Committee of Privileges than most would be now;
is is difficult to see the decision on the 1831 claim as anything
other than wrong.

Post by Gillian White
The dukedom and earldom of Devonshire are held by the Cavendish family. The
earldom was created in 1618 for William Cavendish, Bess of Hardwick's second
son. The dukedom was created in 1694 for the 4th earl.
However, the peerages are often confused. The Letters Patent for the earldom
and dukedom of Devonshire apparently say 'Comes Devon' and 'Dux Devon' only.
The 'shire' was added later by common consent, specifically to avoid
confusion with the other Devon title.
Gillian

[jlk7e]

(snip)

Post by Gillian White
However, the peerages are often confused. The Letters Patent for the earldom
and dukedom of Devonshire apparently say 'Comes Devon' and 'Dux Devon' only.
The 'shire' was added later by common consent, specifically to avoid
confusion with the other Devon title.

So the various Dukes before 1831 would have just been called "Duke of
Devon"? I'm fairly sure that can't be right.

[Gillian White]

Post by jlk7e
So the various Dukes before 1831 would have just been called "Duke of
Devon"? I'm fairly sure that can't be right.

They were always known as 'Duke of Devonshire'.

Perhaps they added the 'shire' at the very beginning, not wanting the title
to be confused with any other peerage, even an extinct one.

Unfortunately, my source doesn't fully explain this issue, so your guess is
as good as mine.

Gillian

[James Dempster]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:01:33 GMT, "Gillian White"

Post by Gillian White

Post by jlk7e
So the various Dukes before 1831 would have just been called "Duke of
Devon"? I'm fairly sure that can't be right.

They were always known as 'Duke of Devonshire'.
Perhaps they added the 'shire' at the very beginning, not wanting the title
to be confused with any other peerage, even an extinct one.
Unfortunately, my source doesn't fully explain this issue, so your guess is
as good as mine.

I had always heard (probably apocryphal) that the 1st Earl of
Devonshire wanted to be created Earl of Derbyshire, which reflects
their pattern of landownership more appropriately, but that James VI&I
stated that there was no such place (!) so he must choose another.

In 1618 the earldom of Devon had been "dormant" for about 60 years
which meant that it would probably have been too soon to revive it in
an unrelated family, whilst I wouldn't have wanted to upset any 17th
century Earl of Derby!

James
James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

[Don Aitken]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:50:42 +0000, James Dempster

Post by James Dempster
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:01:33 GMT, "Gillian White"

Post by Gillian White

Post by jlk7e
So the various Dukes before 1831 would have just been called "Duke of
Devon"? I'm fairly sure that can't be right.

They were always known as 'Duke of Devonshire'.
Perhaps they added the 'shire' at the very beginning, not wanting the title
to be confused with any other peerage, even an extinct one.
Unfortunately, my source doesn't fully explain this issue, so your guess is
as good as mine.

I had always heard (probably apocryphal) that the 1st Earl of
Devonshire wanted to be created Earl of Derbyshire, which reflects
their pattern of landownership more appropriately, but that James VI&I
stated that there was no such place (!) so he must choose another.
In 1618 the earldom of Devon had been "dormant" for about 60 years
which meant that it would probably have been too soon to revive it in
an unrelated family, whilst I wouldn't have wanted to upset any 17th
century Earl of Derby!

The earldom of Devon was first created for the Redvers family in 1100,
revived for the Courtenays in 1335, attainted in 1461, restored in
1485, attainted about 1510, restored 1511, advanced to a Marquessate
(Exeter) in 1525 and attanited again 1539. The Edward Courtenay
created earl in 1535 was the son of the executed Marquess. (see the
reference in my previous post).

Like all earldoms of early medieval origin, it was the earldom of the
county and had the same name as the county. That name is "Devon" in
Latin (in which the relevant documents are written) and indifferently
"Devon" or "Devonshire" in English.

Following its presumed extinction on Edward's death in 1556, the
earldom was recreated for the the Blount family in 1603, becoming
extinct in 1606. All documents relating to this creation call it
"Devon", as do those for the Cavendish creations of 1618 and 1694: the
former has "comes Devon" and the latter "dux Devon". William
Cavendish, incidentally, is said to have paid £10,000 for his earldom.

[Gillian White]

Post by James Dempster
I had always heard (probably apocryphal) that the 1st Earl of
Devonshire wanted to be created Earl of Derbyshire, which reflects
their pattern of landownership more appropriately, but that James VI&I
stated that there was no such place (!) so he must choose another.

Another story has it that the title was intended to be of Derbyshire, but
the scribe who was preparing the Letters Patent made a mistake, and inserted
Devonshire instead.

Gillian

[Peter Tilman]

Post by Gillian White

Post by James Dempster
I had always heard (probably apocryphal) that the 1st Earl of
Devonshire wanted to be created Earl of Derbyshire, which reflects
their pattern of landownership more appropriately, but that James VI&I
stated that there was no such place (!) so he must choose another.

Another story has it that the title was intended to be of Derbyshire, but
the scribe who was preparing the Letters Patent made a mistake, and inserted
Devonshire instead.

I find it difficult to believe that no-one would have noticed that before
the Letters Patent were signed (or stamped, or whatever they do to Letters
Patent).

[Don Aitken]

Post by Gillian White

Post by Gillian White

Post by James Dempster
I had always heard (probably apocryphal) that the 1st Earl of
Devonshire wanted to be created Earl of Derbyshire, which reflects
their pattern of landownership more appropriately, but that James VI&I
stated that there was no such place (!) so he must choose another.

Another story has it that the title was intended to be of Derbyshire, but
the scribe who was preparing the Letters Patent made a mistake, and

inserted

Post by Gillian White
Devonshire instead.

I find it difficult to believe that no-one would have noticed that before
the Letters Patent were signed (or stamped, or whatever they do to Letters
Patent).

And even more difficult to see how "comes Devon" (which is what the
document says) could be confused with anything relating to Derbyshire.

[Gillian White]

Post by Don Aitken
And even more difficult to see how "comes Devon" (which is what the
document says) could be confused with anything relating to Derbyshire.

There was some expectation that the title would be of Derbyshire because of
the location of Chatsworth. I guess some people saw the Devonshire, put two
and two together, got five, and assumed the scribe had made a mistake.

Gillian

[Sacha]

Gillian White9/1/04 10:44

Post by Gillian White

Post by Don Aitken
And even more difficult to see how "comes Devon" (which is what the
document says) could be confused with anything relating to Derbyshire.

There was some expectation that the title would be of Derbyshire because of
the location of Chatsworth. I guess some people saw the Devonshire, put two
and two together, got five, and assumed the scribe had made a mistake.

Strange, really. So many 'of' titles didn't actually live in the placename
of their title.

[jlk7e]

Post by Sacha
Gillian White9/1/04 10:44

Post by Gillian White

Post by Don Aitken
And even more difficult to see how "comes Devon" (which is what the
document says) could be confused with anything relating to Derbyshire.

There was some expectation that the title would be of Derbyshire because of
the location of Chatsworth. I guess some people saw the Devonshire, put two
and two together, got five, and assumed the scribe had made a mistake.

Strange, really. So many 'of' titles didn't actually live in the placename
of their title.

Every Duke of York, for instance? At any rate, when there was already
an Earl of Derby, why would people expect that another would be
created?

[MadCow57]

Post by Gillian White
There was some expectation that the title would be of Derbyshire because of

the location of Chatsworth. I guess some people saw the Devonshire, put two
and two together, got five, and assumed the scribe had made a mistake.<< --
Gillian

Part of a long tradition of blaming the secretary, still going strong.

[Gillian White]

Post by Peter Tilman
I find it difficult to believe that no-one would have noticed that before
the Letters Patent were signed (or stamped, or whatever they do to Letters
Patent).

And that's why I said it was a story, not a fact :-)

This excuse has never been accepted as anything other than creative
thinking.

Gillian

[A Tsar Is Born]

Post by James Dempster
In 1618 the earldom of Devon had been "dormant" for about 60 years
which meant that it would probably have been too soon to revive it in
an unrelated family,

That doesn't follow precedent. Plenty of titles were created for new holders
only two or three years after the death of the last holder -- Oxford comes
to mind.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

[Gary Holtzman]

Post by A Tsar Is Born

Post by James Dempster
In 1618 the earldom of Devon had been "dormant" for about 60 years
which meant that it would probably have been too soon to revive it in
an unrelated family,

That doesn't follow precedent. Plenty of titles were created for new
holders only two or three years after the death of the last holder --
Oxford comes to mind.

But if the title were dormant, rather than extinct, it shouldn't have been available for
use no longer how long it had been.