Dukedoms merging with the Crown

[Troy]

Had Prince Philip been one of the English dukes that the Queen Mother would have preferred Elizabeth II to marry - let's say Philip, 6th Duke of Brighton, to coin a title - would the dukedom still merge with the Crown on the accession of Charles III, 7th Duke of Brighton, or would the future William V also become the 8th Duke of Brighton on the latter's accession?

In other words, do only Royal Dukedoms merge in the Crown or would a non-royal dukedom inherited by the Monarch from his father also merge in the Crown? 

[John Horton]

However, doesn’t merger with the Crown mean (in effect) extinction (with the exception of titles such as Cornwall which automatically come into being for the heir apparent)?

---

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com <peerag...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of marquess <marqui...@gmail.com>
Sent: 18 October 2021 12:46 PM
To: Peerage News <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Dukedoms merging with the Crown

 

It would merge with the Crown in so far as it is in keeping with the original remainder of the dukedom.  So if the sitting monarch had daughters, the said dukedom would go to the next heir male. In Phillip's case all the heirs to the dukedom were his own issue and thus in remainder to the crown. A dukedom created in the normal non royal manner, i.e  with collateral heirs, could only merge with the Crown, if all the collateral heirs were no longer extant. The only heirs then in remainder would be the issue of the duke and the royal that he married. In such a case the dukedom would be merged with the crown, until succession to Crown diverges with the remainder of the dukedom. 

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:30:38 PM UTC+7 Troy wrote:

Had Prince Philip been one of the English dukes that the Queen Mother would have preferred Elizabeth II to marry - let's say Philip, 6th Duke of Brighton, to coin a title - would the dukedom still merge with the Crown on the accession of Charles III, 7th Duke of Brighton, or would the future William V also become the 8th Duke of Brighton on the latter's accession?

In other words, do only Royal Dukedoms merge in the Crown or would a non-royal dukedom inherited by the Monarch from his father also merge in the Crown? 

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/70c3bf01-9244-41c2-bdc5-c5e19921eb4fn%40googlegroups.com.

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment. 

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
where permitted by law.

[Peter FitzGerald]

Yes, it does, and I'm afraid that Marquess's post is wrong. Any title held by a person who becomes the monarch, or any title inherited by the monarch, ceases to exist, regardless of what other heirs there might be. Although it is the correct legal term, "merged" is really a misnomer, as it falsely implies that the title continues to exist somehow, as a subsidiary element of the Crown: "extinguished" would be a better term.

And the answer to Troy's original question is that it would merge in the Crown in the normal way. Although a common term, legally speaking there is no such thing as a "royal dukedom": there are dukedoms, and some of them are held by members of the royal family, but they are all 'just' dukedoms nevertheless.

[John Horton]

This then creates a scenario that is really rather shocking. Had the Queen married one of those dukes favoured by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Monther, then short of daughters only being born to the marriage, that dukedom (plus any other peerage titles held by the duke) would eventually have been wiped out regardless of how many others in remainder there might have been!

Makes an interesting "what if" novel. (Perhaps the family so affected would have been compensated by new titles being created for the next heir outside the Royal Family.)

---

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com <peerag...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Peter FitzGerald <goo...@peterfitzgerald.net>
Sent: 18 October 2021 3:16 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/bcae6251-6718-408b-a903-a863c1424ef4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Henry W]

If a title merges with the Crown, it is extinguished at that point (I like Peter's term). A peerage is a dignity awarded by the Crown, and it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to possess a dignity from itself.

The English Earldom of March (cr 1328) eventually merged with the Crown when the 7th Earl became King Edward IV.  The title was re-created for Edward's eldest son who eventually succeeded as King Edward V, again extinguishing the Earldom, who died in 1483.  If it had been possible for the 1328 title to re-emerge it would have vested in Edward Plantagenet (1475 - 1499, later 17th Earl of Warwick [inherited from a maternal line]) whilst the Crown was inherited by Richard III (died 1485).  Of course in those times, the strictures of peerage law & succession to the Crown were less than they are today, as different Plantagenet males fought for the throne, and peers of the opposing side would be attainted and executed.

There are no occasions in modern times when a peerage extent for many years has been lost.  An heir to a long lived peerage as the Queen's Consort would have led to its extinction.  The most likely seems to have been the Carnarvon earldom as there have always been rumours of the closeness of the Queen and the 7th Earl (formerly Lord Porchester, died 2001). As suggested it would have been good to see it recreated for another male dynast of the family if it merged on the death of the Queen & the 7th Earl (who presumably would have been upgraded), or used for a future junior son in the Royal Family.

[malcolm davies]

Troy,

        The answer is any title held by the male consort merges in the Crown.

  George VI wanted the Queen to marry the 11th Duke of Grafton(then Earl of Euston).

  Had that marriage taken place,the son would be Duke of Grafton following his father's death in 2011 and the title would merge with the Crown on the Duke's succession.Given its long history,it would likely have been reconferred on a grandson.

[marquess]

I have deleted my post not wishing to offer incorrect information to anyone in this group. Though I believe in modern times a collateral heir deprived of the said dukedom could mount a legal challenge. How successful that might be is another matter.

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

Only if the title holder that succeeded the throne, where the title merged with the crown. So yes, Charles III, 7th Duke of Brighton, becomes King, his title would merge. But if he were to have daughters only and his brothers may not succeed to the Dukedom remainders, I assume.

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 9:30:38 PM UTC+11 Troy wrote:

[marquess]

Maltagenealogy.com the argument that you put forward, was exactly the one that I put forward in reply to the original poster, though I have deleted it now; due to the information being erroneous. As stated  in my second post, I believe that in this day and age the deprived heir could make a strong legal argument for inheriting. After all as the heir of the original grantee. 

[Peter FitzGerald]

If this were ever to happen, I think it is inconceivable that the title would not be regranted to the would-be heir, with a remainder replicating the original remainder. There is no way in practice they would allow someone to be deprived of their inheritance in this way.

[S R Eglesfield]

On the death of Matthew STUART, 4th Earl of Lennox (21 IX 1516 - 4 IX 1571), his earldom merged in the Crown, as his heir had been his grandson, James VI, King of Scots. However, shortly after his death, the title was bestowed on his younger son, the King's uncle, Charles STUART, 5th (or 1st) Earl of Lennox (1557 - 1576). There seems to a question of whether this was a re-grant of the original title, or a new creation.

[colinp]

What would have happened if Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother had been a Baroness (by writ) in her own right? On her death the barony would have gone into abeyance between the Queen and Viscount LInley.  Would Lord Linley have been able to petition for the abeyance to be terminated in his favour or would the fact that one of the co-parceners was the Sovereign have meant that this would not have been possible  and the barony would have been treated as being extinguished?  Would the situation have been different if the Queen Mother had predeceased  King George VI? Perhaps in those circumstances Princess Margaret would have needed to  petition for termination of the abeyance before the Queen ascended the Throne?

[John Horton]

Oh, interesting! Since the Crown cannot hold a peerage title, presumably neither can it hold a part-claim to such a title and Lord Linley would therefore have inherited the barony immediately.

Had the Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret inherited half a share each, then they might have been well advised to agree that it should go to the latter.

---

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com <peerag...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of colinp <colina...@hotmail.com>
Sent: 19 October 2021 5:36 PM

To: Peerage News <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Dukedoms merging with the Crown

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/31b93b95-40ea-467c-a25e-072b66eda733n%40googlegroups.com.

[S R Eglesfield]

The only Queen Consort to date who was a peeress in her own right was Anne Boleyn, and it is only a remote possibility that a future King might marry another suo jure peeress. Speculation about the possibility of that happening is therefore of academic interest only.

[Henry W]

I agree that the discussion is largely academic, however, with the change to Succession to the Crown, it is conceivable that either Prince George of Cambridge's eldest child is a girl, or if he has no children for whatever reason, then Princess Charlotte succeeds.  Both these could marry any one of a number of male peers or dynasts of those families.  Also, there is also the possibility of a change to the laws of succession to peerage, should a government choose to go down that road (as regular posters know, there are many potential problems).

If HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother had been a Suo Jure Peeress (English Barony by Writ), I do not think the title would have merged with the Crown and Viscount Linley would have petitioned for the title and surely it would have been granted.  But this question is getting very academic!

Another example is James II of England & VII of Scotland. Before accession to the Throne he was created Duke of York (E) and Duke of Albany (S), I believe with the standard heirs male remainder.  When deposed, James II did not legally revert to being a Duke. His surviving son, James Francis Edward Stuart (the Old Pretender), born just a few months before James II was deposed did not succeed to the Throne on his father's death (due to Act of Parliament), but didn't succeed to his father's previous peerages either - they were merged in the Crown.

There is even modern precedent on these lines - Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, and his Princely style had to be re-created by Letters Patent by George VI.  Legal scholarship at the time broadly viewed that his abdication removed him from the Throne and no other dignities were returned as if he had never been King - his brother had to give them back.

[malcolm davies]

If the person who succeeds to the Crown is a co heir to a barony by writ,there can be no merger as a co heir  rights to the dignity are inchoate.What happens is that the co heir's status as co heir is extinguished,which may or may not lead to the barony coming out of abeyance.