Marquess "of" Douro?

[DBD]

The courtesy title used by the Duke of Wellington's heir-apparent, Lord Douro was created as "Marquess Douro" (gazetted here: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/16894/pages/936.)

However, having a bit of a google around, it would seem as if the present Lord Douro and his good lady wife are styled using an "of" – The Marquess and Marchioness of Douro.

Has anyone else noticed this? Do we know of the origin of this practice? Is it Lord Douro's personal preference? Did the present Duke use an of when he was heir-apparent?

DBD

[marquess]

In Debretts it is listed as Marquess of, might be a bit like the earl Cawdor, which is supposed to be the earl Cawdor of Castlemartin.

[Richard R]

It's an interesting point. The London Gazette link is misleading as it's a statement dated 3 May 1814 when, in fact the dukedom and marquessate were actually created on 11 May 1814. I'd have to check the relevant docket book at The National Archives to be sure, but it may well have been created without the 'of' in the title. But it's use as a style by courtesy is subject to the whim of the peer and his ha. And it looks like, in the case of Wellington, they've chosen to stick the of in. It makes sense to include the of, as Douro is a place, not a family name associated with the Wellesleys, the latter being the usual reason for not having 'of' as part of the title in the higher grades of the peerage. 

[Observer]

It may be argued that all peers, apart from dukes, should be referred to simply as 'Lord Solihull' rather than 'Marquess of Solihull' etc, and that is the way of people dealing with many peers and not wanting to be unnecessarily wordy.

 

That used to be the style of The Times, and its paragraph in the late 1970s about Viscount Cranborne, son of the Marquess of Salisbury, becoming a parliamentary candidate referred simply to Lord Cranborne, the son of Lord Salisbury.

 

That doesn't really answer the question. However, if one thinks that there is no 'of' in Douro, as I do, the practice of cutting straight to 'Lord Douro' does allow one to sidestep the issue. That may not be much use, though, if handling a list in which there are other marquesses and they are referred to using the 'marquess'.

[John Horton]

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard R
Sent: 05 November 2013 09:49
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Marquess "of" Douro?

 

It's an interesting point. The London Gazette link is misleading as it's a statement dated 3 May 1814 when, in fact the dukedom and marquessate were actually created on 11 May 1814. I'd have to check the relevant docket book at The National Archives to be sure, but it may well have been created without the 'of' in the title. But it's use as a style by courtesy is subject to the whim of the peer and his ha.

 

Choice of which title, certainly, but form of title (with or without “of”) …?

 

And it looks like, in the case of Wellington, they've chosen to stick the of in. It makes sense to include the of, as Douro is a place, not a family name associated with the Wellesleys, the latter being the usual reason for not having 'of' as part of the title in the higher grades of the peerage. 

 

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 send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

[Richard R]

You'd think so John but peers get away pretty much with what they want when it comes to courtesy styles. Who's going to (or, in this case, who has) challenge it?

[John Horton]

Variations that can occur:

 

Title other than next senior title used;

Invention of title when no title available.

 

What else happens?

 

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard R
Sent: 05 November 2013 15:25
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Marquess "of" Douro?

 

You'd think so John but peers get away pretty much with what they want when it comes to courtesy styles. Who's going to (or, in this case, who has) challenge it?

[Richard R]

You've listed variations that have occured in the past. We can now include adding 'of' to the style used by your ha.

[Richard R]

Here's how the heirs apparent of the dukes of Wellington have been styled by courtesy:

The 1st Duke's heir apparent was styled Marquess OF Douro from 1814 until he succeeded to his father's honours in 1852.

The 2nd Duke's heir presumptive was not entitled to use a peerage title by courtesy and succeeded his uncle as 3rd duke in 1884

The 3rd Duke's heir presumptive was not entitled to use a peerage title by courtesy and succeeded his brother as 4th duke in 1900

The 4th Duke's heir apparent was styled Marquess Douro (ie without the of) until he succeeded his father as 5th Duke in 1934

The 5th Duke's heir apparent was styled Earl of Mornington from his birth in 1912 and did not change that style until he succeeded his father as 6th Duke in 1941

The 6th Duke's heir presumptive was not entitled to use a peerage title by courtesy and succeeded his nephew as 7th duke in 1943

The 7th Duke's heir apparent was styled Marquess Douro (ie without the of) until he succeeded his father as 8th (and present) Duke in 1972

The 8th & present Duke's heir apparent was styled Earl of Mornington from his birth in 1945 until his father's succession in 1972, since when he has been styled Marquess OF Douro

So there is some inconsistency in the use of the Douro title in the family.

[John Horton]

Two of each in 200 years. Deliberate or accidental? Short of correspondence with the family, it’s difficult to tell.

 

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard R
Sent: 05 November 2013 19:34
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Marquess "of" Douro?

 

Here's how the heirs apparent of the dukes of Wellington have been styled by courtesy:

--
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 post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Richard R]

Yes, I agree there's no way of knowing why unless someone who knows tells us. As a child, I knew the 7th Duke and his wife slightly. But I don't think I could use that as an approach to his son on this question!

[marquess]

I don't see why you  don't just write to him and ask him as a curiosity? It is hardly an intrusive question.

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 4:31:59 AM UTC+7, DBD wrote:

[Richard R]

A splendid idea Marquess,and one you should follow up.