Arthur Darcy Wellesley/Lady Mae Madeleine Wellesley

[Michael Rhodes]

Jemma Madeleine Wellesley, styled Countess of Mornington (nee Kidd, b
20 Sept 1974), wife of Arthur Gerald Wellesley, styled Earl of
Mornington (b 31 Jan 1978), gave birth to twins, a son, Arthur Darcy,
styled _______?, and a daughter the Lady Mae Madeleine Wellesley, at
the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital last week, according to the Daily
Mail (Richard Kay 11 Jan). The infants are grandchildren for the
Marquess of Douro and the Marchioness of Douro (nee von Preussen, a
descendant of Queen Victoria, via the German Emperor William II); and
great-grandchildren for the 8th Duke of Wellington, KG, LVO, OBE, MC,
DL (b 2 Jul 1915).

The Countess of Mornington is a descendant paternally of the Barons
Beaverbrook and descended maternally from the Hodge Bts.

-==-

[Richard R]

That's excellent news for the family - and the title!
I wonder if he'll be called Viscount Wellington? There'd be no
confusion with between the Duke of and Viscount of the same place,
since only the latter can be called 'Lord'. We have to wait and see.

On 11 Jan, 15:43, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[Ronald]

See for the ancestors of the twins: http://heirsofeurope.blogspot.com/2010/01/wellington.html

Ronald

> > -==-- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Richard, according to Wikipedia (for what it's worth), the courtesy
title would be "Viscount Wellesley."

After losing the Earl of Gainsborough a few weeks ago, we now have
another family with 4 generations of living peer and heirs.

Brooke

> > -==-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Were the twins born in 2009 or 2010?

Brooke

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[marquess]

Viscount Wellington of Talavera would perhaps be most apt as opposed
to just Wellington, or he could even be known just as viscount
Talavera.

[Michael Rhodes]

He couldn't be Viscount Talavera - that is the territorial
designation.

Viscount Wellington would be used. Does the dukedom have a barony too?
(I'm away from my Burke's)

Richard Kay (Jan 11) says the cbabies were born last week - so I think
2010.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Peter FitzGerald]

Why would he be Viscount Wellington - duplicating the title of the Dukedom - when there is a non-duplicating alternative, namely the Viscountcy of Wellesley (created with the Earldom of Mornington)?
 
There is, incidentally, precedent for a territorial designation to be used as a courtesy title when no viable title exists (e.g. Viscount Raynham, for the Marquess Townshend's heir), and sometimes even when one does exist (e.g. Lord Eland, for the extinct Earls and Marquesses of Halifax's heirs). At least one has even been used for a substantive title (the Lord Lynn, the future 3rd Viscount Townshend, when summoned by writ in acceleration in the Barony of Townshend).
 
I don't know why the Dukes of Leinster didn't use the same practice when faced with the same problem - the late Earl of Offaly could have been styled Viscount Taplow rather than Viscount Leinster.
 
But, as I say, there is no need for such a practice with the Dukes of Wellington. (There would have been before they inherited the Earldom of Mornington. In such circumstances, I imagine they would indeed have styled the Marquess Douro's heir Viscount Talavera.)
 
 
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:08:15 -0800
> Subject: Re: Arthur Darcy Wellesley/Lady Mae Madeleine Wellesley
> From: mig73alle...@yahoo.co.uk
> To: peerag...@googlegroups.com

[Michael Rhodes]

I stand corrected. I think I would go for Viscount Wellesley here.....

If the territorial designation can be used - i.e. Viscount Talavera
- are we also saying that a life peer - for instance Lord Archer of
Weston-Super-Mare - could suddenly style himself
Lord Weston-Super-Mare ?

On 12 Jan, 11:25, Peter FitzGerald <peter.fitzger...@live.com> wrote:
> Why would he be Viscount Wellington - duplicating the title of the Dukedom - when there is a non-duplicating alternative, namely the Viscountcy of Wellesley (created with the Earldom of Mornington)?
>
> There is, incidentally, precedent for a territorial designation to be used as a courtesy title when no viable title exists (e.g. Viscount Raynham, for the Marquess Townshend's heir), and sometimes even when one does exist (e.g. Lord Eland, for the extinct Earls and Marquesses of Halifax's heirs). At least one has even been used for a substantive title (the Lord Lynn, the future 3rd Viscount Townshend, when summoned by writ in acceleration in the Barony of Townshend).
>
> I don't know why the Dukes of Leinster didn't use the same practice when faced with the same problem - the late Earl of Offaly could have been styled Viscount Taplow rather than Viscount Leinster.
>
> But, as I say, there is no need for such a practice with the Dukes of Wellington. (There would have been before they inherited the Earldom of Mornington. In such circumstances, I imagine they would indeed have styled the Marquess Douro's heir Viscount Talavera.)
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:08:15 -0800
> > Subject: Re: Arthur Darcy Wellesley/Lady Mae Madeleine Wellesley

> > From: mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk

[Peter FitzGerald]

It's not equivalent, since, where peerages are generally "Baron A, of X in the County of Y" or "Baron A of B, of X in the County of Y", these territorial designations are the "X" part. "Weston-super-Mare" in your example is the "B" part. And courtesy titles are generally allowed much more latitude than substantive titles.
 
(Life peers, in particular, have chosen their own titles - if he'd wanted to be Lord Weston-super-Mare he quite easily could have been - and I doubt anyone would have much sympathy for someone who wanted to change a title they'd picked themselves.)
 
However, if Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare were a hereditary peer and were to be created Earl Archer, I don't think anyone would have a problem with him calling his heir Lord Weston-super-Mare (provided no one else held that title).
 
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:35:15 -0800

> Subject: Re: Arthur Darcy Wellesley/Lady Mae Madeleine Wellesley

> From: mig73alle...@yahoo.co.uk
> To: peerag...@googlegroups.com

[Richard R]

I was only half-serious in suggesting Wellington as the courtesy style
for the new baby and quite agree it's likely to be Wellesley. Just
wanted to see what sort of response I'd get in suggesting. Let's see
what happens!

On 12 Jan, 11:58, Peter FitzGerald <peter.fitzger...@live.com> wrote:
> It's not equivalent, since, where peerages are generally "Baron A, of X in the County of Y" or "Baron A of B, of X in the County of Y", these territorial designations are the "X" part. "Weston-super-Mare" in your example is the "B" part. And courtesy titles are generally allowed much more latitude than substantive titles.
>
> (Life peers, in particular, have chosen their own titles - if he'd wanted to be Lord Weston-super-Mare he quite easily could have been - and I doubt anyone would have much sympathy for someone who wanted to change a title they'd picked themselves.)
>
> However, if Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare were a hereditary peer and were to be created Earl Archer, I don't think anyone would have a problem with him calling his heir Lord Weston-super-Mare (provided no one else held that title).
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:35:15 -0800
> > Subject: Re: Arthur Darcy Wellesley/Lady Mae Madeleine Wellesley

> > From: mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk

[marquess]

Talavera is probably more likely I think, but as Michael says, lets
watch this space.

[Michael Rhodes]

Thanks Sir!

On 12 Jan, 11:58, Peter FitzGerald <peter.fitzger...@live.com> wrote:

> It's not equivalent, since, where peerages are generally "Baron A, of X in the County of Y" or "Baron A of B, of X in the County of Y", these territorial designations are the "X" part. "Weston-super-Mare" in your example is the "B" part. And courtesy titles are generally allowed much more latitude than substantive titles.
>
> (Life peers, in particular, have chosen their own titles - if he'd wanted to be Lord Weston-super-Mare he quite easily could have been - and I doubt anyone would have much sympathy for someone who wanted to change a title they'd picked themselves.)
>
> However, if Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare were a hereditary peer and were to be created Earl Archer, I don't think anyone would have a problem with him calling his heir Lord Weston-super-Mare (provided no one else held that title).
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:35:15 -0800
> > Subject: Re: Arthur Darcy Wellesley/Lady Mae Madeleine Wellesley

> > From: mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk

[bx...@yahoo.com]

According to Burke's, Wellington's titles are:

Duke of Wellington
Marquess of Wellington
Marquess of Douro
Earl of Wellington
Earl of Mornington
Viscount Wellington of Talavera and of Wellington
Viscount Wellesley of Dangan Castle
Baron of Mornington
Baron Douro of Wellesley

(Of course, he also has other titles-- Portugese, Spanish, Dutch)

Based on all of this, I think "Viscount Wellesley" is the likely
choice for the future Duke.

Brooke

On Jan 12, 6:08�am, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[bx...@yahoo.com]

According to Paul Theroff's Online Gotha, the infant's courtesy title
is "Viscount Wellesley." Although no specific date is listed, the
children were born in Jan. 2010.

Thanks, Paul!

Brooke

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

The choices of use are as follows:

Viscount Wellington of Talavera and of Wellington.
Viscount Wellington of Dangan Castle.
Baron of Mornington.
Baron Douro of Wellesley
Prince of Waterloo (Netherlands)
Count of Vimeiro (Portugal)
Marquis of Torres Vedras (Portugal)
Duke of Vittoria (Portugal)
Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo (Spain)

Be nice if they styled the young son as Count of Vimeiro, Lord Dourno
of Wellesley..

[Peter FitzGerald]

Burke's unfortunately doesn't really understand territorial designations.

The correct titles are (with territorial designations after the comma):

Duke of Wellington, in the County of Somerset

Marquess of Wellington, in the County of Somerset

Marquess Douro [no territorial designation]

Earl of Mornington, in the County of Meath

Earl of Wellington, in the County of Somerset

Viscount Wellesley, of Dangan Castle in the County of Meath

Viscount Wellington, of Talavera and of Wellington in the County of Somerset

Baron Mornington, of Mornington in the County of Meath

Baron Douro, of Wellesley in the County of Somerset

> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:26:38 -0800

> Subject: Re: Arthur Darcy Wellesley/Lady Mae Madeleine Wellesley

> From: bx...@yahoo.com
> To: peerag...@googlegroups.com

[Michael Rhodes]

The twins were born 4 January, 2010, according to an announcement in
the Daily Telegraph (13 Jan)