Talk:List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

WP:RM
This is a list of dukedoms/duchies of the UK, and not a list of Dukes/dukedom/duchies in general, so it should be moved to some other title. 132.205.45.148 21:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And yet, "the Peerages" is hardly a U.K.-specific term. A.D.H. (t&m) 01:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

"The Peerages" seems a bit contrived though it may be a British idiom I'm unfamiliar with. What about List of Dukes in the United Kingdom. If the Irish titles are still applicable in Ireland then List of Dukes in the UK and Ireland. Alternatively: List of British Dukes. Ben Arnold 05:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it sounds odd to me too and I'm British. Peerage is also a term that could apply to any other country. List of British Dukes would seem to be the best name. -- Necrothesp 20:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think "peerages" is applicable to other nobilities than the English/Scottish/Irish/GB/UK (have I missed any?) one, actually, except possibly France. Is it normally used in English for the pairie de France? If not, I don't see a problem. -- Uppland 21:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies of john k and Adam Bishop. Perhaps a Peerage (disambiguation) page needs to be made, as I didn't find the Peerage of France page under its, in retrospect, admittedly rather obvious title. I agree that List of British Dukes is better. Uppland 22:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There are Spanish and French peers, yes. john k 21:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes. List of "Dukes of the Peerages"?  If we're going to move it List of British Dukes would make more sense. john k 21:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We do have Peerage of France, by the way. Adam Bishop 21:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"List of British Dukes" suggests to me "List of Dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain", as I might say that the Duke of Northumberland is a "British Duke" in the same way that the Duke of Norfolk is an "English Duke" and the Duke of Montrose is a "Scottish Duke". At any rate, I see no point in pre-emptively disambiguating this page when we have no other lists of Dukes. Proteus (Talk) 08:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Peerage indicates that the term Peerage is EXCLUSIVE to the United Kingdom. It seems that there needs to be corrections to all the aristocratic titles that the UK uses. 132.205.45.148 18:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. No consensus for move. violet/riga (t) 21:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus; however, I'll be WP:BOLD and move it to List of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles instead. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 10:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for move: second attempt
List of Dukes → List of Dukes of the United Kingdom and Ireland : This is not a list of dukes in general, but of dukes of the peerages of the United Kingdom and Ireland. As it stands, the title is inaccurate and misleading : Fishhead64 18:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~"


 * support. En-wiki is not intended to be so anglocentric. Shilkanni 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support although dukes should be lower case. Septentrionalis 23:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 132.205.45.110 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is deeply misleading, but the proposed new title is just as bad. john k 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See discussion --Philip Baird Shearer 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd probably support a move to List of British Dukes (as the least bad simple title). Proteus (Talk) 22:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal or the one by Proteus (Talk) Gryffindor  13:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Might I suggest List of dukes in the peerages of Great Britain and Ireland as a compromise? This makes the appellation purely geographical, referring to the islands inhabited by these peerages rather than the shifting political entities, and avoiding what I gather is the somewhat controversial designation of Ireland as part of the British Isles. Fishhead64 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~"


 * support, although it runs the risk of being confused with the (much shorter) List of dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain and Ireland, Septentrionalis 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

discussion
Are there still Irish dukes, recognised as such in Ireland? If not why Dukes of the UK and Ireland why not just "dukes of the UK"? When Dukes were still being created Ireland was part of the UK, or should the title be list of "dukes of Great Britain and Ireland" ? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. I think, however, the proposed title is better on two grounds.  First, since Leinster and Abercorn are peerages in Ireland, it makes sense to include "Ireland" in the title.  Second, having simply "United Kingdom" in the title conveys the message (erroneous, but potentially insensitive) that Ireland is part of the UK.  Users may not automatically assume that the historical United Kingdom is what is being referred to here.  "Great Britain and Ireland" is a better title, in the sense of being more exact, than the one I've suggested, but not so much so that I think it warrants resubmitting a new RM. Fishhead64 17:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But it cuts both ways, if we tag on "and Ireland", it could be read that it implies Betty still has the power to grant Irish peerages. Also as it is the UK expands to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" The full title is "List of dukes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland". As for other titles you do not have to resubmit the request just add Proposals. (See this recent example)--Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The senior title holders aren't Dukes of the United Kingdom or of Ireland, though, they're Dukes of England, Dukes of Scotland and Dukes of Great Britain. Dukes of the United Kingdom are purely those created after 1801 excluding the Duke of Abercorn. List of British Dukes is also out, because in a Peerage sense it means the same as "List of Dukes of Great Britain". If you really can't cope with the current title, then the only correct options I can think of would be the rather unwieldy List of Dukes in the Peerages of the British Isles or splitting it into List of Dukes of England, List of Dukes of Scotland, etc. Proteus (Talk) 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Proteus about the proposed move location being misleading - "Dukes of the United Kingdom and Ireland" would imply the Peerages of the UK and Ireland. I disagree with Proteus that List of British Dukes would mean "List of Dukes of Great Britain." At the very least, we could just note at the top that we are referring to all the Dukes in the various peerages of the British Isles, and not just the Dukes of the Peerage of Great Britain, and I think that would settle the matter. I would add that this list is not exactly a list of Dukes. It is a list of currently extant dukedoms. To have a list of dukes would require linking all the individual dukes. I may do that, though - I think most of them have at least stubs. john k 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm just going to end up bloody well moving the thing myself because this hair-splitting is driving me nuts - LOL! Fishhead64 05:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A bold proposal
Given the discussion here and the general support for moving the article to a more descriptive and accurate title, would anyone object if I moved the article to List of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles with a redirect from List of dukes? I'm going to propose this for the other peerage pages, as well. Fishhead64 20:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources?

 * Is there a source for the assertion that English Dukes outrank Scottish ones?


 * The Act of Union 1707. Proteus (Talk) 08:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If so, is it true in Scotland?


 * Yes. Proteus (Talk) 08:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a source for the assertion that the Duke of Fife, who is descended from Edward VII, is not a member of the Royal Family? Septentrionalis 23:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's rather self-evident &mdash; he doesn't have HRH before his name. (And loads of people are descended from Edward VII, most of whom certainly aren't members of the Royal Family.) Proteus (Talk) 08:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Self-evidence is not verifiability. The statement about precedence requires substantiation. Septentrionalis 22:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Try reading our articles on precedence, then. Proteus (Talk) 14:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also unsourced. Septentrionalis 20:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The royal family is normally considered to consist of agnatic descendants of monarchs. As the Duke of Fife is not an agnatic descendant of Edward VII, he is no more a member of the royal family than anybody else in England who can trace descent from a monarch - he can just trace descent from a more recent one. I should think that you are the one who is responsible for finding a source that says he is in the royal family - it's hard to prove a negative. john k 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A source for that definition, other than a WP article, would be sufficient. Septentrionalis 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is not about that, and it contains no claim that the Duke of Fife is "not a member of the royal family". It includes positive claims that the Dukes of Gloucester, Kent, Edinburgh, and York are members of the royal family, which can be easily supported.  See, from the official royal website, which lists as members of the royal family "Her Majesty the Queen," "HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh," "TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall," "HRH The Duke of York," "TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex," "HRH The Princess Royal," "TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester," "TRH The Duke and Duchess of Kent," "TRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent," and "HRH Princess Alexandra."  The higher precedence of royal family members is discussed on the Burke's page to which I added a link. If you think Fife is, in spite of this, a member of the royal family, it would be up to you to find a source which says this. john k 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One of you, then, probably wants to emend the succession boxes on James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife, which show him as having greater precedence than the Duke of Gloucester. Septentrionalis 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Those order of precedence boxes should probably just all be gotten rid of. john k 03:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason to separate the Duke of Abercorn, whose duchy is an Irish peerage, from the other existing Irish Duke?Septentrionalis 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes: the list is in order of precedence, and as an Irish Duke holding a Dukedom (not a Duchy) created after 1801 he ranks alongside UK Dukes rather than before them. (And there aren't two separate Peerages of the UKoGBaI and of the UKoGBaNI &mdash; there's just one called the Peerage of the United Kingdom.) Proteus (Talk) 08:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He is, in short, junior Irish Duke, and should be so listed. Septentrionalis 22:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't follow at all. Listing him how you want him listed implies he outranks the Dukes of Wellington and Sutherland, which obviously isn't the case. Proteus (Talk) 14:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The solution to that is a footnote, as elsewhere. Better than suggesting that he is a Peer of the UK, as the present text does. Septentrionalis 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The present text does not do that. It says that the dukes listed are "Dukes in the Peerages of the United Kingdom and Ireland created after 1801".  I've added a footnote to say that Abercorn is in the Peerage of Ireland. john k 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Much simpler to divide Peers into England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, as the header does. This is surely the more immediately relevant information for most readers; anyone inviting the Dukes of Wellington and Abercorn to a formal dinner should be consulting other sources anyway. Septentrionalis 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But part of the purpose of this article is to list peers in order of precedence. It's not such a big deal with Dukes, but for other levels of the peerage it's much harder to reconstruct the order of precedence from a separated list of Irish and UK peers than it is to simply footnote all the Irish ones. john k 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How many post-1801 Irish creations and promotions were there? A dozen, IIRC? This may be an argument for dividing the baronage into six sections instead of five, but surely the dukes can be left in a simple order?


 * The most important thing about the Abercorns, once we establish that they are neither senior, nor (quite) junior duke, is that they never sat at Westminster by right of peerage (I believe at least one was rep. Scottish peer, but that's different. Septentrionalis 03:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a pretty fair number of Irish marquessates, earldoms, viscountcies, and baronies created after 1801. I think it's best to follow a common format for all peerage levels.  And the Dukes of Abercorn most certainly sat at Westminster by right of peerage - they were Marquesses of Abercorn in the Peerage of Great Britain. john k 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just walked away from the copy of Cokayne available to me, but I recall the Marquessate as being Irish . I have suggested a compromise; as the present state of the text will show, this preserves both interests. (All I'm really suggesting, after all, is that the List of Dukes have the same format as List of dukedoms.) Septentrionalis 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed it around a bit - I think the section titled "Order of Precedence" ought to give the order of precedence, don't you? The Marquessate is certainly in the peerage of Great Britain.  I was going to point you to Leigh Rayment's peerage page, which is normally pretty reliable on these matters, but it seems to be down (hopefully not gone?)  But note that the ODNB article on the first duke, for instance, talks about him being in the House of Lords in 1832, and gives no hint to him being an Irish (or Scottish) representative peer.  The wikipedia article Duke of Abercorn indicates it as a GB title, but obviously that's not useful. john k 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(left) That's fine; I'll look at Cokayne when I have the chance.
 * The problem is that there are two descriptions of the same order of precedence:
 * Peers of Ireland before 1801 have precedence over (Peers of the UK and Peers of Ireland after 1801), ties broken by older creation.
 * Peers of Ireland (of whatever date) have the same precedence as Peers of the UK, but ties are broken by date of creation.

These are, as stated, exactly the same order, in the sense that no possible combination of facts can give different precedence. Septentrionalis 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How about restoring the order by nation, but a note to this effect? Septentrionalis 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Peers of Ireland created after 1801 yield precedence to already existing peers of the United Kingdom of the same rank.

France
There should be one for France. What about peerages for Orange and Hanover; etc? IP Address 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Duke should be capitalised in the title of this article Grunners 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall and Rothesay
The Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay is omitted from the list, yet other Royal Dukes are listed. Why? 195.92.40.49 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because he doesn't have precedence as a duke; similarly, those dukes who are also earls are not listed in List of Earls; no qualifier, since there are no other Earls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that Cornwall was added in July 2009. If it is going to stay, shouldn't Prince William be added under 'eldest sons of Dukes'? He is the Duke of Cornwall's eldest son, although that title does not pass from father to son. Alekksandr (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Richmond, Lennox and Gordon
I'm pretty sure the Duke of Richmond title is in the English peerage, Duke of Lennox in the Scottish and Duke of Gordon in the British. Shouldn't these be marked separately, even if they are and always have been all held by the same person? Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dukedom of Ulster
I eliminated the Dukedom of Ulster from the Irish peerage. I can't find any mention of this dukedom elsewhere, so I assume that it was the work of vandals, Pacomartin (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the history. This dukedome was added on 15 January 2009, and Billy McMillen was an IRA activist that died in the 1970's. There is no name on the edit, but maybe someone can track the individual. Pacomartin (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Calypso1020 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

my comment does not contain an academic reference.

I rather need an advice.Can some of you give names of gentelmen clubs or countryside places or leisure points where i could possibly meet members of british nobilty?

I belong to the french one,coming from an old french-canadian family and would like to find a beloved husband among british nobiilty.

May be there is even a specific introduction services?-I do not know their names as I live in France.

Thank you for your advice to globeonnet@live.com

Calypso1020 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dukedom of Seychelles
I have found no proof of the existence of the Duke of Seychelles, either in Debrett's Peerage or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Please prove or remove. Jeremicus rex (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Duke of Cambridge listed twice?
The Duke of Cambridge appears under "Dukes in the Peerage of England" and "Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom." Presumably it should be listed under just one of these; which one? Tinmanic (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter. Opera hat (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Wikipedia policy (WP:LISTPEOPLE) states that individuals should only be included on lists if "the person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement". Since there is nothing notable whatsoever about being the younger son of a Duke (notability, in Wikipedia's terms, not being inherited), can anyone give a good reason why that section of the list should not be deleted entirely? This is an encyclopaedia, not Burke's Peerage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LISTPEOPLE itself admits that there can be exceptions to the notability requirement. I imagine it was written with lists of the type List of Ukrainians in mind; if we included non-notable people, we'd end up with a list of millions. But with this type of list, with clearly delimited scope (i.e. a closed list), there's no reason to insist that each individual should be worthy of an individual article; we often include lists specifically for this purpose (i.e. to give brief information on things that may be of interest to someone, but aren't each worthy of a separate article).--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but 'younger sons of Dukes' are neither Dukes, nor likely to ever become Dukes, and on that basis, I can see no reason to include them in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, I suppose, they don't belong in an article under this title, though if the information can be sourced (and perhaps filled out a bit), I see no reason to exclude the list from Wikipedia altogether.--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You really think a stand-alone list of 'younger sons of Dukes in the peerages of the British Isles' would pass the requirements for notability? How? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There used to be such an article but it was merged into this one. See Talk:List of younger sons of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles. Opera hat (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have to reach the question of notability just yet, since the bigger problem is that the list is entirely unsourced, and such things are magnets for nonsense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tracing all this back to Order of precedence in England and Wales, it seems one could at least make a claim that the 'younger sons of Dukes' are notable as a group in that context, in that they rank relatively highly. Personally, I don't see the need to compile a list of them though - I can't think of a reason why anyone would want to use Wikipedia to look them up, as fortunately the order of precedence is hardly of everyday significance, and on the occasions it matters, those involved will no doubt use a more reliable source. Still, if we can list Pokemon characters...
 * As Jimbo says, the list is entirely unsourced though, and I'm inclined to think that alone is sufficient reason to remove it. Whether a properly-sourced list should have its own article (which I'd have thought more logical), or should be added back to this article, is something to be decided if and when the list is compiled. I'd point out however, that compiling a list which may well include minors of no other claim to notability may give rise to difficulties regarding general BLP policy.
 * For now, I'm going to remove the list from the article, and copy it to this talk page, where the issues can better be dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just amended the list to add citations to Cracroft's Peerage. Opera hat (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a similar list at List of marquesses in the peerages of the British Isles to which the same objections would apply. Opera hat (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the sources, Opera hat. Yes, the 'marquesses' article has much the same problem, except that the 'Eldest sons' is mostly redlinks too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

List of younger sons of Dukes in the Peerages of the British Isles - unsourced, so moved here from article
''Please do not restore this list to the article until it is properly sourced, and consensus is reached that it should be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) HRH The Duke of York, second son of the Duke of Edinburgh
 * 2) HRH The Earl of Wessex, third son of the Duke of Edinburgh
 * 3) HRH Prince Harry of Wales, second son of the Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay
 * 4) Lord Thomas Fitzalan-Howard, second son of the Duke of Norfolk
 * 5) Lord Philip Fitzalan-Howard, third son of the Duke of Norfolk
 * 6) Lord Gerald Fitzalan-Howard, second son of the 17th Duke of Norfolk
 * 7) Lord Mark Fitzalan-Howard, brother of the 17th Duke of Norfolk
 * 8) Lord Charles Seymour, second son of the Duke of Somerset
 * 9) Lord Francis Seymour, second son of the 18th Duke of Somerset
 * 10) Lord Charles FitzRoy, second son of the 11th Duke of Grafton
 * 11) Lord Edward Somerset, second son of the Duke of Beaufort
 * 12) Lord John Somerset, third son of the Duke of Beaufort
 * 13) Lord Peter Beauclerk, second son of the 13th Duke of St Albans
 * 14) Lord James Beauclerk, third son of the 13th Duke of St Albans
 * 15) Lord John Beauclerk, fourth son of the 13th Duke of St Albans
 * 16) Lord Robin Russell, second son of the 14th Duke of Bedford
 * 17) Lord James Russell, third son of the 14th Duke of Bedford
 * 18) Lord Rudolf Russell, second son of the 13th Duke of Bedford
 * 19) Lord Francis Russell, third son of the 13th Duke of Bedford
 * 20) Lord Edward Spencer-Churchill, second son of the Duke of Marlborough
 * 21) Lord Charles Spencer-Churchill, second son of the 10th Duke of Marlborough
 * 22) Lord Hugo Manners, second son of the Duke of Rutland
 * 23) Lord Edward Manners, third son of the 10th Duke of Rutland
 * 24) Lord Roger Manners, third son of the 9th Duke of Rutland
 * 25) Lord John Douglas-Hamilton, second son of the 15th Duke of Hamilton
 * 26) The Lord Selkirk of Douglas, second son of the 14th Duke of Hamilton (as a son of the Duke of Hamilton, he ranks higher than he does through his own life peerage)
 * 27) Lord Patrick Douglas-Hamilton, fourth son of the 14th Duke of Hamilton
 * 28) Lord David Douglas-Hamilton, fifth son of the 14th Duke of Hamilton
 * 29) Lord Charles Montagu-Douglas-Scott, second son of the Duke of Buccleuch
 * 30) Lord John Montagu-Douglas-Scott, second son of the 9th Duke of Buccleuch
 * 31) Lord Damian Montagu-Douglas-Scott, third son of the 9th Duke of Buccleuch
 * 32) Lord Rory Campbell, second son of the Duke of Argyll
 * 33) Lord Colin Campbell, second son of the 11th Duke of Argyll
 * 34) Lord Craig Murray, second son of the Duke of Atholl
 * 35) Lord Ronald Graham, second son of the Duke of Montrose
 * 36) Lord Donald Graham, second son of the 7th Duke of Montrose
 * 37) Lord Calum Graham, third son of the 7th Duke of Montrose
 * 38) Lord Edward Innes-Ker, second son of the Duke of Roxburghe
 * 39) Lord George Innes-Ker, third son of the Duke of Roxburghe
 * 40) Lord Robert Innes-Ker, second son of the 9th Duke of Roxburghe
 * 41) Lord Kimble Montagu, second son of the 12th Duke of Manchester
 * 42) Lord Max Percy, second son of the Duke of Northumberland
 * 43) Lord James Percy, third son of the 10th Duke of Northumberland
 * 44) Lord John FitzGerald, second son of the 8th Duke of Leinster
 * 45) Lord Adrian FitzGerald, second son of the 7th Duke of Leinster
 * 46) Lord Richard Wellesley, second son of the Duke of Wellington
 * 47) Lord John Wellesley, third son of the Duke of Wellington
 * 48) Lord James Wellesley, fourth son of the Duke of Wellington
 * 49) Lord Henry Egerton, second son of the Duke of Sutherland
 * 50) Lord Nicholas Hamilton, second son of the Duke of Abercorn
 * 51) Lord Anthony Hamilton, second son of the 4th Duke of Abercorn
 * 52) Lord Nicholas Windsor, second son of the Duke of Kent
 * 53) Prince Michael of Kent, second son of the 1st Duke of Kent

Error
The article says "In the peerage of England, the title of Duke was created 74 times (using 40 different titles: the rest were recreations). Twice a woman was created a Duchess in her own right (but only for life). Out of the 74 times, 37 titles are now extinct (including the two women's), 16 titles were forfeit or surrendered, 10 were merged with the crown, and 10 are extant..." That adds up to only 73. Richard75 (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article lists 11 English dukes. I have corrected the sentence. Richard75 (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Totting up the English titles from the list of dukedoms in the peerages of Britain and Ireland, I make it 75 creations, of which 38 became extinct. Opera hat (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple dukedoms
I suggest that the page should in some way record that: - 1. The Duke of Richmond, Lennox, and Gordon holds three dukedoms in three peerages. 2. The Duke of Argyll holds two dukedoms in two peerages. I appreciate that each of them is shown in the position from which he derives his precedence. Could they appear in the other positions in italics? Alekksandr (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Especially as the dukedom of Cornwall and the dukedom of Rothesay are shown separately, despite being held by the same man. Alekksandr (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Format
At present, each list can only be viewed in order of creation. I suggest that it would be useful if the whole list were made sortable - compare List of dukedoms in the peerages of Britain and Ireland. Its default position would be according to precedence, but it could also be viewed alphbetically (Abercorn to York), by date of creation (1337 to 2011) or according to the five peerages (England, Scotland, GB, Ireland and the UK). The list would look like this: -

What do italics represent
Thank you to all who have worked on these tables. Can anyone tell me, what do the italics represent in the tables? There should be some kind of key as to why Duke of Lennox etc are italicized and skipped in the order. perhaps you know? —Мандичка YO 😜 15:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They represent dukedoms whose holders already appear higher up the table. E.g. the man who holds the dukedom of Lennox (created in September 1675 in the peerage of Scotland) also holds the dukedom of Richmond (created in August 1675 in the peerage of England). He takes his predecence from his senior dukedom. So, if all the dukes were walking in a procession at e.g. a coronation, he would be fourth in line, and there would be nobody between the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry (13th) and the Duke of Argyll (14th), as the man who holds the dukedom of Richmond and the dukedom of Lennox cannot be in two places in the procession at once. I hope that this makes sense! Alekksandr (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be spelt out in the article. As the person who raised the issue, can I ask if you think that the above explanation is suitable for adding to the article? Alekksandr (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you! I thought something like that because Duke of Rothesay was the first one italicized. I think there should be some kind of legend at the bottom where it says "Holds multiple dukedoms." Maybe we could do a slightly different color for that row? I'm trying to think if italics is the best way. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am agnostic re how best to portray this.Alekksandr (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being so cool. I see now that it was mentioned in the column at the right! But for some reason when I saw italics it seemed to signal "invalid" in some way and I was thinking it meant extinct, but of course it wasn't. What do you think about this to symbolize multiple dukedoms?

So what would you think about this? The table is awesome and I want to use it on the List of Earls page too. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks fine as far as it goes. You would probably want to show Duke of Gordon as the tertiary dukedom held by the man whose primary dukedom is Duke of Richmond and whose secondary dukedom is Duke of Lennox. It is up to you whether you want to use different background colours for (1) secondary dukedoms and (2) the only tertiary dukedom. As the article is about dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland, it does not have a separate line for that nobleman's quaternary dukedom - Duke of Aubigny - that peerage is in List of French peerages. Alekksandr (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I agree about the Dukedoms of Lennox and Gordon. I want to import the table format to List of Earls, List of Viscounts, etc, so this will be very helpful. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Heir Apparents
In heir apparents section Sussex is listed as Royal dukedoms, but Gluocester and Kent is not. All three are currently royal Dukedoms and all three heirs are not Princes. Archie is a possible future Prince but still not. Chamika1990 (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Heir Presumptive?
“The Earl of Wilton is the heir presumptive to his Marquessate of Westminster.“

What does that even mean??

And is the Marquessate not subsumed into the Dukedom? Or are the succession rules a little different? There is, anyway, nothing about this on the Earl of Wilton’s page. Please clarify.2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:59B8:7E4B:2A19:70BF (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Marquessate was created before the Dukedom, so if the current Duke died without heir, the Dukedom would be extinct while the Marquessate would go to the Earl of Wilton since he is descended from the brother of the 2nd Marquess. The family tree on Duke of Westminster might help explain it as well.Emk9 (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Duke of Lancaster
Should the title of Duke of Lancaster not be part of the list? I understand that it is held by the monarch but it is a dukedom nonetheless. Vesuvio14 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This part "but this is a tradition that has no constitutional warrant, and the British monarch is not styled legally so within either the County Palatine of Lancashire nor the Duchy of Lancaster in any official capacity (for example, Letters Patent or Acts of Parliament), merely as a sign of local, 'Lancastrian' loyalty." makes me think that it's not officially a title. Additionally, Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom says "However, legally the monarch is not the Duke of Lancaster: peerages are in origin held feudally of the sovereign who, as the fount of honour, cannot hold a peerage of him- or herself. The situation is similar in the Channel Islands, where the monarch is addressed as Duke of Normandy, but only in accordance with tradition. He or she does not hold the legal title of Duke of Normandy." Emk9 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you! Vesuvio14 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)