Talk:Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk

Titles and styles

In our entry on the Dukedom of Norfolk we say "The style Earl of Arundel is used as a courtesy title by the Duke's eldest son, the present one of which is Henry Fitzalan-Howard, Earl of Arundel. The style Lord Maltravers is used as a courtesy title by the eldest son of the Duke's eldest son (the Duke's grandson)." And yet we say that the 18th Duke was styled "Edward Fitzalan-Howard, Esq. (1956–1971)" and "The Hon. Edward Fitzalan-Howard (1971–1975)".

First, I understand why at a young age he had no peerage title. The 16th Duke, who was the Duke until his death in 1975, was from a different branch of the family.

Second, I understand why, in 1971, he became The Hon. - his father inherited a peerage, the Barony of Beaumont in 1971.

And finally, I understand why, in 1975 he became Earl of Arundel - because his father inherited the Dukedom.

I thought there was an error here and it took some study to work this out. I'm therefore only leaving this note here to help anyone else who comes along at some point and has the same puzzle as to why the present Duke was never styled Lord Maltravers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, to sum it up, he was never called "Lord Maltravers" because he was never the eldest son of the eldest son of a Duke of Norfolk, as his father was not the son of a Duke of Norfolk.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:6CF9:3104:2109:6380 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Premier Duke of the Realm.

Do I understand it right, that in Peerage in the UK, this man is second only to The Queen? Or in England only? СЛУЖБА (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. Premier Duke merely means he is the highest-ranking of the English Dukes (and therefore of all the nobility), immediately after any royalty; peerages of England take precedence first, followed by Scotland, Ireland (sort of, it's a bit tricky there), and then the peerages of the United Kingdom. After The Queen comes Philip, then the rest of the Royal Family (Charles first, then William and Harry, followed by Anne, then Andrew and Edward, then the cousins--Gloucesters and so on). After that comes the nobility (of which HG the Duke of Norfolk ranks first) and the clergy (archbishops and so forth), as well as members of Cabinet and so on. This article, and related articles listed therein, should give you a better idea. (I may be slightly off on the exact particulars of who fits where; it's late).

COI Disclosure

I have added additional, factual information not previously present and cited my Blog. TheSinglePeer (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed it, because blogs are not reliable sources. → ROUX ₪ 17:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Very well, but I wish you had read my blog first. It is highly-respected in my field and always cites its sources extensively. It is not an opinion page or a vehicle for original research. Perhaps you will investigate my biography page on His Grace and the sources on which I based my blog's profile of him, so that these sources may be cited directly and the content returned here. If you have the time and inclination, I urge you to do this, so this Wiki listing thereby may be enriched. At present, I am too discouraged by this process to do so myself, having attempted to add third-party, verified detail in a response to a note on this page saying that more content and sources were needed for this listing - and seeing instead this result of my first attempt as a contributor. TheSinglePeer (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It was removed due to extremely basic Wikipedia policy; it's nothing personal. Your blog may be respected--we'd need to see some proof of that; generally speaking blogs are only usable as sources when they are extremely well-regarded in their field--but you are the exact wrong person to be making that determination, due to how we feel about conflicts of interest. Using the information you have already found with reliable sources is completely different.

And, I don't want to be a jerk here but, "I got something wrong on my first edit and even though someone provided a link telling me what was wrong and it's clearly not personal, I'm taking my ball and going home and sulking" is really not an optimal stance to be taking. → ROUX ₪ 07:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We was not Earl of Arundel when he got married. He became Earl of Arundel when he became Duke of Norfolk

This article has the sentence "The Duke, then the Earl of Arundel, married Georgina Susan Gore on 27 June 1987 ...". Please see my comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Howard,_Earl_of_Surrey . When he got married he was CALLED "Earl of Arundel" while not BEING the Earl of Arundel. He might have had titles via other routes, but suppose he didn't, suppose he was only his father's Heir Apparent. In that event he would not sit in the House of Lords or wear a coronet at ceremonies, and he would not, if tried for crimes, be able to keep commoners off of the jury. If he was an Earl before his father died, it was Earl of something else, not Arundel. The wikipedia article on Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom makes this clear.

I have used the verb "CALLED" in these matters because I can't ascertain whether "styled" or "titled" would be correct. If you know, you might advise. In my habit, the word "styled" is correct in the sentence "'Duke of Norfolk' is a title and 'Your Grace' is a style", and so it might be incorrect to say "styled Earl of Arundel". On the other hand a person who is CALLED "Earl of Arundel" doesn't have the actual title (i.e. he does not hold the earldom and the seat in Lords), and so I am loath to say "titled 'Earl of Arundel'" Not knowing which verb to use I've used neither and gone with "called".2604:2000:C6AA:B400:6CF9:3104:2109:6380 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Divorce

The present title holder may be the first Duke of Norfolk to be divorced, and also remarried after divorce. Could someone please verify this? 42.107.68.1 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)