Hypothetical title question

[bx...@yahoo.com]

There is a new book by Hugh Vickers, that says that the Queen Mother wanted the then Princess Elizabeth to marry Hugh, Earl of Euston (later the 11th Duke of Grafton).

Aside from the question whether or not this is true, what would have happened to the Grafton dukedom if Princess Elizabeth and the Earl had married, assuming they had had a son?  

Thanks.

Brooke

[S. S.]

Well I think it would not be terribly different than what happened to Philip. I would assume Hugh would have later on been made a prince like Philip, thus becoming HRH The Duke of Grafton, could have been same as how Philip was given HRH after Elizabeth succeeded to the Crown. In due course suppose Elizabeth and Hugh had a child, John. 

1. Hugh outlives Elizabeth. Their son, John, succeeded his mother as suppose King John II. Hugh is still duke. When Hugh dies, his dukedom and all subsidiary titles merge with the Crown the second he dies and John succeeds and the Northumberland dukedom is no more. 

2. Elizabeth outlives Hugh. Their son John would now be, if he was created, Prince of Wales etc and also Duke of Northumberland. Somewhat similar when Charles III succeeds his father as Duke of Edinburgh. When Elizabeth dies, John succeeds as King and all his honors merge with the Crown immediately. So this scenario would be similar to how Charles and Philip's dukedom played out. 

S.S.

[S. S.]

I would also guess that their children would be extended the same HRH title as Elizabeth's other children had been given when George VI passed letters patent to that effect. 

S.S.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

S.S., that's what I thought as well, but the only difference is the Edinburgh dukedom  was created for Prince Philip and had no history.

The Grafton dukedom dates back to 1675, and had a long history, that would have been just merged into the Crown.

In any event, the course of history was what it was.

Thanks for your help.

Brooke

[Paul Theroff]

It's an interesting situation. The doctrine of merging into the Crown seems long-established, but in almost all cases where this has happened, the title in question had been around for only a generation or two, and when the monarch and his male issue became extinct, no one was left who could have claimed the original title.

In Brooke's hypothetical situation, the dukedom of Grafton would merge with the Crown, extinguishing the rights that many living people (all the living FItzroys) had to succeed to it. So then when John dies without issue, the dukedom is no longer available to the Fitzroys who had originally been legally in the remainder. Something about how this works seems unfair to the hypothetical Fitzroys.

There is one case in which a much older title merged with the Crown, and was then immediately granted to the next heirs who would have inherited it if the monarch had already died without issue.

I mean the Earldom of Lennox, which merged with the Crown when it was inherited by King James VI in 1571 as soon as his grandfather, the 4th Earl, died. Just a year later, the Earldom was granted to the next heir under the original creation, as if James VI did not exist and would not have issue of his own. It was later granted to the NEXT heir and then the one after that.

So, perhaps, had the Dukedom of Grafton merged with the Crown, it MIGHT have been granted as a new creation to the next Fitzroy in line. It wouldn't have been legally necessary, of course, but it may well have happened.

This is just a theory, but comments are welcome.

[Paul Theroff]

John, 3rd Earl of Lennox, murdered by Sir James Hamilton 4 Sep 1526; m.ca 1512 Lady Elizabeth Stuart
|
1.Matthew, 4th Earl of Lennox (Dunbarton Castle 21 Sep 1516-k.by James Cadell at Stirling 4 Sep 1571 in an attack by Earl of Huntly on the Parliament sitting there); m.St.James’s Palace 29 Jun 1544 Lady Margaret Douglas (half-sister of King James V)
1.1.Henry, Lord Darnley, cr Duke of Albany 1565, King of Scots 1565 (7 Dec 1545-murdered at the Kirk of Field 10 Feb 1567); m.Holyrood 29 Jul 1565 Mary, Queen of Scots
1.1.1.King James VI

1.2.Charles, cr 1572 Earl of Lennox (ca 1556-London 1576); m.1574 Elizabeth Cavendish (d.just before 21 Jan 1582)

2.Robert, Bp of Caithness 1543, 1563-80, cr 1578 Earl of Lennox and Lord Darnley; resigned those titles and cr 1580 Earl of March and Lord of Dunbar (ca 1517-St.Andrews 29 Aug 1586); m.6 Dec 1578 (div 1581) Lady Elizabeth Stewart, Lady Lovat

3.John, sn d’Aubigny, d.31 May 1567; m.ca 1542 Anne de la Queille (test 4 Dec 1579)

3.1.Esmé, sn d’Aubigny, cr 1580 Earl of Lennox, etc, cr 1581 Duke of Lennox, Earl of Darnley, etc (ca 1542-Paris 26 May 1583); m.1572 Catherine de Balsac (d.1631/2) --> issue

[malcolm davies]

Brooke,

              The short answer is that it would have merged with the Crown when the 12th Duke of Grafton succeeded to the throne.

The more interesting question is whether it would have been recreated like Edinburgh,and what remainder would have been included in the letter patent.Thos previously in remainder would have lost their rights with the title merging.The letters patent,could,however have been to “His Royal Highness Prince X and the heirs male of his body and in the absence of such heirs, to the heirs male of the body of Henry,Duke of Grafton so created on (date) 1675 in the peerage of England.”

The new title would also nominate the subsidiary titles of Earl of Euston,Viscount Ipswich and Baron Sudbury which had been created separately in 1672.

[S. S.]

Though the new peerages would have precedence of now and not before, so a drop in status either way sadly.

S.S.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thanks, Paul and malcolm, for your comments.

Sounds like the two of you were, more or less, saying the same thing. 

I agree, that it would  have been unfair to the hypothetical FitzRoy family , for those in the line of succession, to have lost those rights if the titles has merged with the Crown. 

Even if there had been a new creation, as S.S. puts it, it does seem there would have been a "diminished" status to the dukedom and associated titles.

Just an interesting scenario to have pondered "what if."

Brooke