Subsidiary titles

[Troy]

Has it ever happened that a Duke or Marquess/Marquis has lived long enough to be a great-grandfather (all males in direct descent) and also had enough subsidiary titles that each of the following 3 generations was able to hold a courtesy title? 

[marquess]

Yes Troy this has happened, I remember seeing a picture  taken around 75 with the Duke of Leinster, Marquess of Kildare, the Earl of Offley and the great  grandson was styled Viscount Leinster.  Sadly what looked so secure in 75/76 is now looking extremely precarious to say the least.

[Ivan Prekajski]

Duke of Wellington (1915-2014) was great-grandfather. 

[Henry W]

As Ivan notes, the 8th Duke of Wellington had 3 direct heirs in line from 2009 to 2014 (who were successively Marquess of Duoro, Earl of Mornington, Viscount Wellesley).

Also the 1st Duke of Edinburgh had 3 direct heirs from 2013 to 2021 - he only had 2 subsidiary titles, so his g-gs would not have had a courtesy title - this was however academic due to their other titles!

Regarding the Leinster case - yes this happened (1974 - 1976), and there were sufficient titles available (a total of 4 viscsountcies / baronies), but all duplicated titles used for the peer and his first two heirs.

[Henry W]

7th Duke of Grafton had 3 direct heirs from 1914 to 1918.  They were successively Earl of Euston, Viscount Ipswich, and a Hon. g-gs.  He lacked a Marquessate, so not all could have courtesy titles even though he had a 3rd (Baron Sudbury)

[Henry W]

6th Duke of Richmond, 6th Duke of Lennox, 1st Duke of Gordon had 3 direct heirs from 1899 to 1903.  There were successively Earl of March & Kinrara, Lord Settrington, and a Hon. g-gs.  He lacked a Marquessate, and only had subsidiary titles at degree of Earl and Baron. 

[Henry W]

11th Duke of Bedford had 3 direct heirs from January to August 1940.  There were successively Marquess of Tavistock, Lord Howland and a Hon g-gs.  He had one Earldom, but it too was named Bedford so could not be used. No Viscountcy available either.

[Peter FitzGerald]

Re Leinster, the usual tactic in that scenario is to invent a title, usually derived from the surname of the peer (Viscount FitzGerald, here) or from the territorial designation of one of the peerages (the only option here would be Viscount Taplow, from the Viscountcy of Leinster, of Taplow in the County of Buckingham). No idea why neither of those was done here.

On Sunday, 28 August 2022 at 15:09:01 UTC+1 Henry W wrote:

[Peter FitzGerald]

Although examples are very rare, courtesy peerages are occasionally used by sons of courtesy viscounts. A direct-line grandson of a Marquess of Londonderry, for example (there isn't one at present), is styled Lord Stewart, even though the heir apparent is styled Viscount Castlereagh (there is a senior available title, Earl Vane, but it is not used). Similarly, a direct-line grandson of a Duke of Manchester (again, none at present) is styled Lord Kimbolton (the actual peerage is Montagu of Kimbolton), even though the heir apparent is styled Viscount Mandeville.

Although it is not clear (examples are so rare that it is difficult to detect patterns or rules), this usage appears to be limited to the situation where there is a senior subsidiary title which would justify the grandson having a courtesy peerage (the Earldoms of Londonderry and Vane in the former case, and the Earldom of Manchester in the latter case), but which is not used (e.g. because it is the same as the main peerage, or just because of family preference in the case of the Vane title). In effect, Viscounts Castlereagh and Mandeville (when they exist) are treated as courtesy earls who are styled as viscounts for convenience. If that is indeed the rule, it would have excluded the Duke of Grafton from this usage, since (as you say) he has no marquessate, even one with the same title as his dukedom.

On Sunday, 28 August 2022 at 15:14:08 UTC+1 Henry W wrote: