Title question concerning 2 of Queen Victoria's sons

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I'm at the very early stages of attempting to put together a list of Queen Victoria's descendants.

In doing so, I have a question, from what I noticed concerning the titles of two of her younger sons.

Prince Alfred (who later succeeded his uncle as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) was created Duke of Edinburgh and Duke of Strathearn on May 24, 1866.

Exactly 8 years to the day (in 1874), his younger brother, Prince Arthur, was created Duke of Connaught and Strathearn.

How could you have two Dukes with the same territorial  designation at the same time?  Why was the Strathearn title used for both of them?

Thanks.

Brooke

[colinp]

Prince Alfred was created Duke of Connaught, Earl of Ulster and Earl of Kent.  Fairly sure he wasn't Duke of Strathearn.

[colinp]

I meant Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Ulster and Earl of Kent!!!

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Hi colinp.

The information comes from Marlene A. Eilers Koenig's book, ""Queen Victoria's Descendants," page 189 of the first edition.  

He was created "Duke of Edinburgh and Strathearn, Earl of Ulster and Earl of Kent , May 24, 1866.

 Also, here's Prince Alfred's entry  from thepeerage.com.  It attributes the Strathearn creation to Alison's Weir's book, "Britain's Royal Families."

https://thepeerage.com/p10066.htm#i100653

Brooke

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

Hi Brooke,

This is the extract of the Royal Family pages in Debrett's Peerage, 1876.

I do not here or anywhere else see, that Prince Alfred was created the Duke of Strathearn on May 24, 1866 - or anytime before or after this date - only that he was created the Duke of Edinburgh on this date.

But I see, as you write, that Prince Arthur was created the Duke of Connaught and of Strathern, in 1874 (the exact date is not stated in this book).

Best regards, Nick

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

My two last names, a dot in between them, and @ gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/22fb0696-e347-45ce-8984-38bd5a27c33en%40googlegroups.com.

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

Hi Brooke,

From "The London Gazette" on Prince Alfred (1866) and Prince Arthur (1874).

Sorry, but the secondary sources you referred to have it wrong.

Always try to get so close you can to the primary / original source(s). Secondary sources are always a little dangerous, because they are "edited".

Best regards, Nick

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

My two last names, a dot in between them, and @ gmail.com

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

I use this here, when I look at sources.

Still in 2025, the book by the Danish History Professor, D.Phil. Kristian Erslev, who worked at University of Copenhagen and who was Chair of Denmark's largest science foundation, the Carlsberg Foundation (similar to the Welcome Foundation in the UK), "Historical Technique. The Basics of the Historical Investigation" ("Historisk Teknik. Den Historiske Undersøgelse fremstillet i sine Grundlinier"), 2nd edition from 1926 (1st edition is from 1911), is the foundation for the history studies / education at Danish / Nordic universities.

Best regards, Nick

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

My two last names, a dot in between them, and @ gmail.com

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thanks so much, Nick, for your response, and for sharing the primary source.  (I also found this information now in Burke's 1899 edition.)

(I honestly couldn't understand why both of them would have been created "Duke of Strathearn", which is why I posed the question.)

It is surprising to me, because I know Marlene's book on the subject of QVD is very highly regarded.  The same is true with Ms. Weir's book on the royal families of Britain.  It's Interesting that they both had the same mistake, unless one used the other as a resource.  

 I'm sure I'm  not the only one who questioned this situation in the many decades since both books were published.

What a way to start the research!

Thanks again, Nick!

Best,

Brooke

[Peter FitzGerald]

This doesn't answer your question for reasons that others have given, but there has in fact been at least one example of duplicated titles held by other members of the Royal Family, albeit as far as I'm aware there are no examples of duplication at the same rank. In 1881, Queen Victoria's fourth son, Prince Leopold, was created Earl of Clarence as a subsidiary title of the Dukedom of Albany; that title was still extant (held by his son, Prince Charles Edward) in 1890 when Prince Albert Victor of Wales (elder son of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII) was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale. The duplication may have been a reason for the double dukedom (and, of course, as a title held by someone in direct line to the throne, it was expected to merge in the Crown in due course; in fact it did not even get that far, becoming extinct on Prince Albert Victor's death less than two years later).

There are also many other duplicated titles outside the Royal Family, which I believe have been discussed here previously. There's even a current one involving a member of the Royal Family: William, Prince of Wales, is (as a subsidiary title of the Dukedom of Cambridge) Earl of Strathearn, despite the fact that the Earl of Moray is Lord Abernethy and Strathearn. Again this is a title created for someone in direct line to the throne which is expected (albeit not guaranteed) to merge in the Crown.

On Tuesday, 27 January 2026 at 18:03:22 UTC bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thanks for your reply, Peter.

At first glance, it was puzzling to me, because if true, they both would have been Dukes (and "royal" Dukes at that) of the same territory, at the same time.

And yes, as you have stated, there have been duplicated titles, although as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), they are not of the same rank.

Brooke

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

Dear Brooke,

Thanks. Good you questioned this!

Mistakes expand like rings in water. One person makes a mistake, and this mistake is then copied and pasted numerous times – sometimes hundreds of times.

This is what makes big genealogical sites such as Family Search, Geni and MyHeritage very dangerous sources.

Apparently, either Marlene A. Eilers Koenig or x Weir did their research with primary sources, and worse than that, they did not – opposite you – questioned their sources.

They apparently copied and pasted some secondary sources they found – without questioning this, and they did not either try to find primary sources or even get close to these (– and as we know now, both Burke’s and Debrett’s had it correct – even though they are secondary sources). Afterward, they charged money for their poor – or should we call it non-existing – research results, which were actually just based on “copy and paste”.

As I have mentioned earlier, I had an intermezzo with Marlene A. Eilers Koenig a little over 20 years ago, when I, as a history student (next to my normal work and a corporate SVP at a large global group), contacted her:

I questioned politely something she had written, which I believed was wrong, but instead of embracing my correspondence, Marlene A. Eilers Koenig acted arrogant and impolite, informing me about her academic and scientific credentials and telling me that I had no entitlement as a student to question her authority in these matters.

Instead of answering my questions, Marlene A. Eilers Koenig referred me to buy her book, which we now know is made as “copy and paste” – and is therefore, in reality is a “shortcut” coffee table book – and not a book based either on academic research or scientific evidence, and I will so far to say, that her book cannot be called independent work, and I wonder how many more copy and paste mistakes her books includes(?)!

Best regards, Nick

P.S.

It is for this reason that Nordic universities still use Professor, D.Phil. Kristian Erslev’s book 100 years (1926) after the last edition was published. Primary sources will always be the foundation for history studies and you should always question your sources!

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

My two last names, a dot in between them, and @ gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/8005b2fb-7f0c-4751-a25d-9c402f9e2028n%40googlegroups.com.

[Chris Pitt Lewis]

Marlene Eilers' slip of the pen (which is what it presumably was) in the
first (1987) edition of "Queen Victoria's Descendants" is not repeated
in the second edition published in 1997, which says of Prince Alfred
(p.146) "Created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Ulster and Earl of Kent, May
24, 1866".

You probably should use the second edition, and the updating "Companion
Volume" from 2004, as the starting point for your research, rather than
the earlier version.

Alison Weir's "Britain's Royal Families" was first published in 1989, so
she no doubt copied the mistake from Marlene, without checking further.

--

Chris Pitt Lewis

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

To Brooke:

I think it made it clear (both as a genealogist and a historian):

I would NOT use these two authors' books as sources. If they did copy and paste, who knows how many other mistakes they have made?

In addition, I find it kind of embarrassing for them, that they actually charge(d) money for the books, which is obviously is not research, while they claim so. They did not even bother double-checking their “sources” with other sources.

Both Burke’s and Debrett’s seem to be able to manage primary sources, so even you will have to look them up in several editions over years, and it is therefore more time-consuming. I would do that.

To Chris Pitt Lewis:

How can you "defend" such sloppy work, which is obviously pure copy and paste without them even checking the most known sources, and which they then charge(d) money for – and thereby earn(ed) on?

(I assume that you are not a teacher or a college / university educator with that view.)

Best regards, Nick

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

My two last names, a dot in between them, and @ gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/67bef221-773d-4ca8-a08d-ac27072e2ee9%40gmail.com.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thanks, Nick and Chris.

I'm the first to admit I'm no peerage expert, but as you can see, even I questioned this.  

My guess is that is was definitely a slip of the pen, perhaps mistakenly copied somehow from Prince Arthur's information,  but one would have hoped it would have been picked up for the first edition.  In my view, it's seems like a pretty big mistake.  Maybe the fact that many just think of Prince Alfred with the ducal title he succeeded to (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), rather than the ducal title he was given,  has something to do with people not having made more of this? Or maybe they have, but it's was done years ago.

I'm happy it got picked up and was corrected for the second edition.  Unfortunately, I only have access the first edition.  

If I decide to proceed,  this will make me do so carefully.

Brooke

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Hi Nick.

Thanks for your advice.  I was going to use QVD as a guide, but verifying it with primary sources, such as DPB and/or Burke's.  

If I do decide to go ahead with this, it will not be very detailed at all, just basically a list of her descendants.  I never intended to do a scholarly piece, or in any great detail.  It would be  a list, similar to what Hein Bruins has done for the descendants of her siblings.

Brooke

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

Dear Brooke,

Since you do not have any primary sources, meaning the actual letter of patents and so on at hand, the closest you can get to checking names, titles and, for instance stated in Burke’s and Debrett’s are “The Gazette, Official Public Records”.

If you use the search field in “The Gazette, Official Public Records” then make sure to write a name or a title like this:

“Alfred Ernest Albert”

or

“Duke of Edinburgh”

Make sure to put quotes at the beginning and at the end” and if you combine the two, do it like this:

“Alfred Ernest Albert”+“Duke of Edinburgh”

This should give you the factual names, titles and dates correct, and at the same time spare you some research time, while still doing proper real research.

 You find “The Gazette, Official Public Records” here:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/ 

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

My two last names, a dot in between them, and @ gmail.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/fc055932-4733-4826-bcdf-b98f93fa2451n%40googlegroups.com.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thanks for this help, Nick.

Much appreciated!

Brooke

[Chris Pitt Lewis]

Where was I "defending sloppy work"?

I was certainly not defending Alison Weir, whose books I have never used, in part because, if I remember correctly, they had pretty dire reviews from knowledgeable reviewers at the time they came out. Saying that she appears to have copied a pretty obvious error from another author without checking other sources is hardly "defending" her.

It is clear that Marlene Eilers was wrong, if (I have never seen the first edition of her book so I am relying on a secondary source (Brooke) for the information as to what it says) she said that Prince Alfred was created duke of Strathearn. I doubt she had a source for it; I suspect it was a momentary lapse of concentration, confusing Princes Alfred and Arthur. I am open to correction if you know of a pre 1987 source for that false information, from which she might have "copied and pasted". Of course she should have picked the mistake up before publication, but at least she did so for the 2nd edition.

--

Chris Pitt Lewis