Earl of Chester and Duke of Rothesay question

[S. S.]

This may be an odd question, but this came up while I was writing the entries for CHESHIRE. Since the Earldom of Chester is created as a dignity alongside that of Prince of Wales, does that mean it is created each time in the period according to the time period that it belongs, or do we consider it as its own thing? I am specifically talking about when the dignity was combined and given with the title Prince of Wales, not the pre-Prince of Wales title holders. 

A similar one is for the Dukedom of Rothesay. When it is created each time in the modern period, does this peerage still count as a peerage in the Peerage of Scotland? 

S.S. 

[malcolm davies]

SS,

     My understanding is(with the caveat that I have not  re read each patent or charter before posting) is that the title in each case revives whe the conditions are satisfied( ie there is a son of the sovereign).As it is a revival,not a fresh creation,the title in each case, remains in the peerage in which it was created(England or Scotland as the case may be).

[S. S.]

I can understand to an extent what you mean Malcolm, though I have trouble with the idea of "revival" in the case of the Earldom of Chester. It is a peerage dignity created each time with the title of Prince of Wales. The letters patent for it in the modern period has been created over and over again. Indeed, the letters patent for it usually goes "to his heirs, Kings of the United Kingdom/Great Britain" etc etc. 

So if Person A succeeds their father as King A, having been created as Earl of Chester (and by extension Prince of Wales) previously, then that dignity has merged with the Crown and ceases to exist. There is no single document causing the creation of the Earldom of Chester to occur again and again, unlike the examples of Rothesay or Cornwall, which are governed by an Act of Parliament. 

Therefore, I would argue that the Earldom of Chester in each peerage (England, Great Britain, UK) ought to be considered a new peerage creation. As for Rothesay and Cornwall, this is a unique case and I am not sure what someone would make it it- either the dignities belong in the Peerage of England and the Peerage of Scotland respectively from the date of their operative acts of Parliament, or they are created anew in their respective peerages according to date of creation by satisfaction of the requirements laid out in their respective Acts of Parliament. 

S.S.

[malcolm davies]

SS,

     I was rethinking what I said and what I said relates to the Dukedom of Cornwall.

    The Earldom of Chester is an appanage to the Prince of Wales.If you look at the letters patent,they follow the same procedure ie investing and girding with sword,but lacks the usual reference to heirs of the body.Instead the reference is to "his heirs Kings of the United Kingdom and of Our Other Realms and Territories Heads of the Commonwealth".

   This suggests that the creation is not a peerage, being a manner of style and that the Earldom of Cheste is not a peerage dignity,merely an appanage. If the present King had predeceased his mother,the terms of the patent allow the present Prince of Wales to succeed him as happened with George III who succeeded Frederick Prince of Wales(note George III never became Duke of Cornwall because he was not the son of the sovereign).There is the alternative argument that there is the creation of a peerage with a special remainder that sees the title inevitably return to the Crown by way of merger but I do not think such an argument would succeed.

[S R Eglesfield]

There is no automatic succession to the (usually conjoined) titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, which have to be created afresh for each holder. In the case of King George III, his creation as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on 20 April 1751 followed the death of his father on 31 March 1751.

[Shachar Raz]

Looking at the Gazette, there is a never a reference to inheritance of the titles.

[S. S.]

The remainder in the charter of 18 May 1333 for Prince Edward of Woodstock is “habend. et tenend eidem filio nro. et heredibus suis Regibus Anglie”. The Latin is (my collegiate Latin is still rusty): “to have and to hold unto him and his heirs, Kings of Great England”.

The remainder in the charter of 15 Oct 1399 to Prince Henry of Monmouth (later Henry V) is “sibi et heredibus suis Regibus Anglie”. The Latin is “to him and his heirs, Kings of England”.

The charters of 13 Oct 1453 for Prince Edward of Westminster; 24 Aug 1483 for Prince Edward of Middleham; 29 Dec 1489 for Prince Arthur (elder brother of Henry VIII); 18 Feb 1503/04 for Prince Henry (later Henry VIII); 4 June 1610 for Prince Henry Frederick (elder brother of Charles I) and 4 Nov 1616 for Prince Charles (later Charles I) all mention the same phrase: “to heirs, Kings of Great Britain”. All of the above information was gleaned from Complete Peerage under CHESTER.

 

If you look through J. C. Sainty’s Peerage Creations (2008), you can find the remainder to four instances of the titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester between 1714 and 1762:

1714, 27 Sept for Prince George Augustus. ““Remainder to heirs, Kings of Great Britain”. See C 231/9, p 314; 1 Geo I, pt 1 (C 66/3498) no 3.

1729, 8 Jan for Prince Frederick Lewis. “Remainder to heirs, kings of Great Britain”. See C 231/10, p 154; 2 Geo II, pt 2 (C 66/3576).

1751, 20 Apr for Prince George William Frederick, Duke of Edinburgh. “Remainder to heirs, kings of Great Britain”. See C 231/11, p 98; 24 Geo II, pt 2 (C 66/3632) no 15.

1762, 19 Aug for Prince George Augustus Frederick. “Remainder to heirs, kings of Great Britain”. See C 231/11, p 330; 2 Geo III, pt 4 (C 66/3685) no 9.

 

The letters patent (2023) for Prince William as Prince of Wales is as follows:

“CHARLES THE THIRD by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom

of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and

Territories King Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith To

all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other Our Subjects

whatsoever to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Know Ye

that We have made and created and by these Our Letters Do make

and create Our most dear Son and most faithful Counsellor William

Arthur Philip Louis Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland Duke of Cornwall Rothesay and Cambridge

Earl of Carrick and Strathearn Baron of Renfrew Baron

Carrickfergus Knight Companion of Our Most Noble Order of the

Garter Knight of Our Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the

Thistle Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland

Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester And to the same Our most

dear Son William Arthur Philip Louis Have given and granted and by

this Our present Charter Do give grant and confirm the name style

title dignity and honour of the same Principality and Earldom And

him Our most dear Son William Arthur Philip Louis as has been

accustomed We do ennoble and invest with the said Principality and

Earldom by girting him with a Sword by placing a Coronet on his

head and a Gold Ring on his finger and also by delivering a Gold

Rod into his hand that he may preside there and may direct and

defend those parts To hold to him and his heirs Sovereigns of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our

other Realms and Territories Heads of the Commonwealth for ever

Wherefore We Will and strictly command for Us Our heirs and

successors that Our most dear Son William Arthur Philip Louis may

have the name style title state dignity and honour of the Principality

of Wales and Earldom of Chester aforesaid unto him and his heirs

Sovereigns of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Heads of the

Commonwealth as is above mentioned In Witness whereof We have

caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at

Westminster the thirteenth day of February in the first year of Our

Reign

BY WARRANT UNDER THE KING’S SIGN MANUAL

ROMEO”

 

The future George III was indeed created Prince of Wales as a fresh creation prior to his succession to the Crown, as he did not succeed his father in that dignity. It would be correct therefore to describe that upon his father's death, the peerage reverted back to the Crown (I don't think it is appropriate to say "extinct" in this case for this unique dignity). 

S.S.

[S. S.]

Oh it should be "England" not "Great England", a typo. 

S.S.