Talk:Duke of Westminster

Title Split?
The statement is made that on the decease of the current Duke, one person gets the dukedom and some one else gets all the other titles.

Why?

The article also implies that there is still a separate Marquessate that was not subsumed into the Dukedom upon creation. Is there going to be one person as Duke of Westminster and another as Marquess of Westminster? Someone who knows this arcane stuff should give this article the benefit of his knowledge. 2.31.34.225 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question:


 * Peers in the higher ranks of the peerage (dukes especially) generally hold a number of different titles. These have been inherited from their ancestors who were gradually promoted up the peerage ladder with the creation of new titles.


 * The current duke of Westminster (Gerald, the 6th Duke) holds a number of peerages: the dukedom (Westminster) created in 1874, the marquessate (Westminster) created in 1831, the earldom (Grosvenor) and viscountcy (Belgrave) created in 1784, and the barony (Grosvenor) created in 1621. He also holds a baronetcy, created in 1621. When the 6th Duke dies, all of these titles will be inherited by his son, Hugh Grosvenor, who is known by the courtesy title of Earl Grosvenor, a peerage actually held by his father, but which the son is allowed to 'borrow', so to speak, as the heir apparent.


 * If Hugh Grosvenor were to die before his father the 6th Duke, there would be no more male heirs of the 1st Duke of Westminster, the title created in 1874. The dukedom would therefore become extinct on the death of the 6th Duke. However, there are more distant male heirs, descending from younger sons of the 1st Marquess of Westminster, who would inherit all of the remaining, older peerages and the baronetcy. The heir in this case would be Francis Grosvenor, 8th Earl of Wilton, who is heir male of Robert Grosvenor, 1st Baron Ebury, himself third and youngest son of the 1st Marquess. But Francis Grosvenor's highest title would be Marquess of Westminster, not Duke of Westminster. The dukedom would have ceased to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rithom (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why can distant male heirs not inherit the Dukedom, when they can inherit all the other titles? This point needs clarifying. 12.201.7.201 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In all but a very few special cases (such as allowing a brother of the first holder to inherit if the first holder has no male children, e.g. Duke of Bronté), to inherit a hereditary title you must be a direct descendant of the original holder. The older titles of the Duke potentially have a larger group of heirs through other, parallel branches of the family. A recent example is the Dukedom of Portland (created 1716) that became extinct in 1990, but the earlier Earldom of Portland (created 1689) was inherited by a distant cousin and continues. --DavidCane (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Baronet to Baron
Why would the 7th Baronet be created Baron Grosvenor in 1761 ? Was this a demotion ? 193.195.197.232 (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Baronets, though their titles are hereditary, are not members of the peerage. Barons are members of the peerage, albeit the lowest rank. At that time, such a creation would have carried the right sit in the House of Lords. Being created a baron was a promotion, not a demotion. 203.31.52.137 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Loop-de-loop
The link to the present Earl Grosvenor, the heir apparent, in the chart at the bottom of the page, merely loops back to this page via a redirect. What's the point? Does someone have something useful to contribute about the heir? If not, remove the link. -- Michael K Smith Talk 22:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Godfather of Prince George
That "The present duke is a godfather of Prince George of Wales." (2nd paragraph) doesn't seem especially relevant to this article. Mcljlm (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Line of succession
Wouldn't "Currently there is no heir to the Dukedom" be better than "There is no heir to the Dukedom"? Mcljlm (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why? Isn't "currently" necessarily implied by the use of the present tense? Proteus (Talk) 16:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For me, especially since the article is on the dukedom, it gives the impression there won't be an heir. Since the the 7th duke is now married it's possible there will be an heir. Mcljlm (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)