Extinct dukedoms of the 20th century

[Eleanor Doughty]

Hello all,

I'm puzzling over something that I wondered if someone would be able to shed some light on please.

Rewatching the BBC's documentary on the remaining dukes ('The Last Dukes') the narrator says that at the Coronation in 1953 there were 28 non-royal dukes present, and that today there are 24 left. I've counted and can only find three that have become extinct since 1953 – Portland, Leeds, and Newcastle. Does anyone know of the fourth, per chance?

It's possible I'm being completely dense, but my list below only has 27 on it, and I'm stumped as to who I'm missing. It's possible that it's a title that has now been merged with another – such as Buccleuch and Queensberry/Richmond and Gordon did. It's also possible, I suppose, that the 28 includes the Duke of Windsor, but he surely wasn't at the Coronation! On another note, I'd love to find a complete guest list from the Coronation if one exists, but so far have not had any luck... 

Anyway, if anyone happens to know, I'd be hugely grateful for any clues please – thanks very much!

1. Marlborough
2. Buccleuch
3. Roxburghe
4. Hamilton
5. Abercorn
6. Northumberland
7. Montrose
8. Norfolk
9. Westminster
10. Fife
11. Rutland
12. Richmond
13. Somerset
14. Beaufort
15. Leeds
16. Manchester
17. Newcastle
18. Portland
19. St Albans
20. Leinster
21. Argyll
22. Sutherland
23. Bedford
24. Grafton
25. Wellington
26. Atholl
27. Devonshire

[bx...@yahoo.com]

I checked Debrett's 2003.  This edition has a list of all the peerage extinctions from 1950-2000.

There are 4 ducal extinctions listed : Leeds (1964), Windsor (1972), Newcastle (1988) and Portland (1990).  There have been no more ducal extinctions since then.

So, it appears that either an error was made, or, for some reason, they considered Windsor a non-royal dukedom.

If anyone finds anything different, or has a different explanation, please post it.

Brooke

[S R Eglesfield]

I  was about to post a similar reply, and agree that the number of non-royal dukes in 1953 was 27.

[malcolm davies]

edoug,

           You are correct-there were 3 non royal extinctions and Windsor.

  Prior to that,the last non royal extinctions were Cleveland(1891) & Buckingham(1889).The royal ones were Connaught(1943) & Fife(1912) plus the deprivations of Cumberland and Albany in 1918.

  As to the latter,s 2 of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 reads:-

  "It shall be lawful for the successor of any peer whose name has been so removed,to present a petition to His Majesty praying to have the peerage restored and his name placed on the Peerage Roll;and His Majesty may refer such petition to a committee of the Privy Council constituted as aforesaid(ie as set forth in s 1,which requires the presence of 2 judicial committee members);and should the committee be satisfied that such person has incurred no disability under this Act,and is well affected to His Majesty's person and Government,His Majesty may thereupon direct that the peerage be restored and the name of the petitioner be placed on the Peerage Roll;whereupon all rights and privileges of the holder of the peerage shall revive and be in force as if the name of the peer had never been removed from the Roll."

  Now in the case of Albany,there is the argument that there is no successor,as none of the male heirs to the peerage complied with the Royal Marriages Act.However there is a logical inconsistency about this argument,given that adherence to a foreign power would bring the need for compliance with the Royal Marriages Act to an end,and the issue would only be whether the marriage was valid according to the domicile of the successor.

[Eleanor Doughty]

Thank you all – it seems that somehow Windsor was included as a non-royal duke! 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/peerage-news/PLBb6cXL7NY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/7600ebae-084e-4c26-a919-533c2664e058n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Eleanor Doughty

Feature writer

07854 073818

@brushingboots

eleanordoughty.com

[colinp]

I seem to recall (unfortunately I can't remember where I read it) that the Dukedom of Edinburgh was entered on the Parliament Roll as a non-Royal dukedom.  I believe this practice was followed until fairly recently by Whitaker's Almanack which listed Edinburgh in the non-royal dukedoms.  I am away from my books at the moment so can't check any old copies I have.  If that is the case then the programme researcher could have looked at a 1952 Whitaker's Almanack and added up the non-royal dukes not noticing that Edinburgh was among their number.  That's the best I can come up with 

One of the highlights of the programme is Lady Rosemary Muir's pronunciation of piano

[Richard R]

Thanks Colin. I agree with you on this. I think, technically, Edinburgh is not a royal dukedom as Philip was a naturalised British commoner at the time of his creation in 1947.

[John Horton]

I think the problem here is what in rhetoric is called a “transferred epithet”. It is not dukedoms that are royal or non-royal but the dukes themselves. The present Duke of Gloucester is a royal duke, for example; the next one won’t be.

The Duke of Edinburgh presents a particularly confusing example since, as noted, he was not a British prince at the time he was created a duke. For those differentiating between royal and non-royal dukedoms, Edinburgh should have been classified as royal in (at the latest) 1957.  

---

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com <peerag...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard R <r_ru...@hotmail.com>
Sent: 02 June 2021 10:18 AM
To: Peerage News <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Extinct dukedoms of the 20th century

 

Thanks Colin. I agree with you on this. I think, technically, Edinburgh is not a royal dukedom as Philip was a naturalised British commoner at the time of his creation in 1947.

--
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/b931cfdd-a1a9-4b83-992f-36bc3786f17cn%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.