Titles of George III *as* Prince of Wales

[Shinjinee Sen]

I apologize for any double posting but I have been having trouble posting to the group for a long time. Since I post from my phone,  my mail gets auto corrected. This "as" became "and"

I was wondering about the titles of George III and Prince of Wales. I know he was created Prince of Wales in 1751, but I don't remember now if he was created Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay. 

I was under the impression (from a discussion on alt.talk.royalty in the 1990s)  that a grandson of the monarch could not be created Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay since those titles were reserved by law for the eldest son of the monarch (England and Scotland respectively). 

Could someone please inform me what his titles were as of 1751 as inherited from his father or granted by his grandfather George III?  A reference will be appreciated. 

Unfortunately, I no longer have my copies of the Royal Encyclopedia, or Burke's etc. The royal website is less than helpful and I am now out of touch with royal heraldry and genealogy resources.  I have been quoted Alison Weir as a reference for his titles being all of those granted to his father,  including the dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay. The date of creation was 20 March 1751.

Thank you to Andrew and Brooke whom I have also contacted. 

This posting corrects my header and minor errors and typos. I don't seem to be able to delete my first post today. Again,  my apologies for that. 

Regards

Shinjinee 

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Gentleman's Magazine 1751

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081686564&view=1up&seq=215

This is not official. One needs to find the London Gazette, from which this is taken, but it says, after calling him by his titles which were his by birth or inherited from his father (i.e., Prince of Great Britain, Electoral Prince of Brunswick-Lunenburgh [sic], Duke of Edinburgh, Marquis of the Isle of Ely, Earl of Eltham, Viscount of Launceston, and Baron of Snaudon [Snowdon]), that he was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.  Thus not created Duke of Cornwall or of Rothesay, etc.

Cokayne, in The Complete Peerage, agrees that George III was not Duke of Cornwall, saying that since he was not "filius regis" he was not entitled to that title. He goes on to say that George III is the only instance of an heir apparent not possessing the title "Duke of Cornwall". There was one previous instance of a grandson being heir apparent, that of Richard II, but Richard II had been CREATED Duke of Cornwall, and did not obtain it by right, as all other Dukes of Cornwall did.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Hi Shinjinee.

According to Debrett's latest edition, he "succeeded his father as Duke of Edinburgh, etc.... 20 March 1751... created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester 20 April 1751."

His father, the Prince of Wales, had been created Duke of Edinburgh,but also  Marquess of Ely, Earl of Eltham, Viscount of Launceston and Baron of Snowdon on 26 July 1726.

Presumably, these are the titles which he inherited on his father's death.

There is no mention of any other titles.

Hope this helps.

Brooke

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Here is a link to The Complete Peerage article on the Cornwall title.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044024582983&view=1up&seq=385

On page 373 see the article and footnotes on Frederick; on the next page, see footnote b.

[malcolm davies]

Shininjee,

               George III was not Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay as he was not within the terms of the patents which created the titles.The patent provides for revival of the title when the King has a son who is heir apparent.A grandson who is heir apparent is not within the terms of the patent.Where a Duke of Cornwall dies in the lifetime of his father,the title may pass to the next eldest son eg when Henry VIII & Charles I succeeded their brothers.

  Whilst Richard II was Duke of Cornwall in his grandfather's lifetime,this was because a creation was specially made for him separate to the creation for his father.That creation is extinct and cannot be revived.

  The situation is to be contrasted with the title Prince of Wales.This is created by the monarch of the day and the heir apparent does not automatically become Prince of Wales.George V was for  short period of time Duke of Cornwall before he was created Prince of Wales following his tour of Australia in 1901.Prince Charles was not created Prince of Wales until 1958-6 years after becoming Duke of Cornwall.

  The patent for the Duke of Rothesay is the same as for the Duke of Cornwall and the same principles apply.

(Note in my earlier response I said heir presumptive which was an error)

[S R Eglesfield]

Looking at my copy of Burke's Guide to the Royal Family (1973), it states that King George III succeeded his father as Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc, and several sites on the internet also have it that he succeeded to those dukedoms. It has, however, always been my understanding that he did not hold those titles because he was not the son of the Sovereign, so I think that in this instance the Complete Peerage has got it right and Burke's has got it wrong.

Incidentally, Sir Charles Lemon, 2nd (and last) Bt, MP, in a House of Commons debate concerning the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster on 15 December 1837 (see https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1837-12-15/debates/568c7cee-889f-4119-94e2-7090ed190d59/DuchiesOfCornwallAndLancaster - Column 1143), stated the following:

"It was certainly unquestioned that the limitations of the charter [of the Duchy of Cornwall] were exceedingly peculiar, and that it had been hitherto interpreted literally; so much so that Henry 8th though the eldest living son, was never Duke of Cornwall; nor Charles 1st nor George 2nd nor George 3rd, the language of the charter requiring the Duke of Cornwall to be the eldest son of the King of England."

This is strange, in that Henry VIII did succeed his elder brother as Duke of Cornwall, and Charles I did succeed his elder brother as Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, and George II was an only son, so was the undoubted Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay on his father's succession to the throne.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Cokayne, in The Complete Peerage, states that Henry VIII, Charles I and George II WERE Dukes of Cornwall. He cites official documents in which they are so styled. 

On the other hand in footnotes he outlines the case against this being strictly legal. One legal opinion was that the act of creation should be strictly construed to mean “first-begotten” son of the sovereign, so that younger sons, even though heirs apparent, did not get the title when their elder brothers died.