User talk:Kenwood2008

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Questions

 * Hi could you possibly answer the following for me?

I can certainly try!


 * 1. With the creation of Royal Family members as peers, was there any particular protocol for choosing the territorial designations? I have noticed that on the whole many non-royal & royal dukedoms were created using substantially big and important territorial designations, such as Devonshire, Connaught, Edinburgh, York, Norfolk, Somerset etc. Why then were such large designations relegated to earldoms eg Prince Alfred, Queen Victoria's son, being created Earl of Kent, or the Earldom of Dublin on the Prince of Wales, Earl of Sussex on the Duke of Connaught? Surely Duke of Dublin would have been more appropriate as the capital of Ireland?
 * Is there any correlation between the size/importance of a territory and its designation of a dukedom, marquessate, earldom etc? I have noted some dukedoms eg Clarence come from tiny parts of territory, yet they are made dukedoms nonetheless.

Taking the last question first, yes, there generally is, but it's very roughly applied, and generally only works one way (i.e. important places are unlikely to be used for lower titles, but plenty of very minor places are used for higher titles). This is often because peers are promoted through the ranks and keep the same titles - the Dukes of Wellington, for instance (Wellington being merely a small town in Somerset), originally had that title as a mere Viscountcy, and the 1st Duke just kept it as it he rose through the ranks. The background is important for understanding this - originally, all Earldoms and above were counties (or at least cities or county towns), and gradually, as the number of peers increased and the number of counties stayed the same, other places had to be used. The important places, however, somewhat retained their prestige, and to some extent still do, and so even now the choice of peerage isn't just "what sounds nice" (the story of Sir Winston Churchill being offered the Dukedom of London, for instance, even if not actually true, shows how highly a title referring to such an important place would be regarded). How this relates to Royal titles is that the places chosen are very often chosen not out of the blue but because they have a history of being used for Royal titles, and so the further back you go looking for Royal titles the more important the places you find are likely to be. Thus places like Gloucester and York are important, but because of this they have also been used as Royal titles for centuries - and this is where Clarence fits in, as this has been used as a Royal title since the 14th century (its original creation being for the rather mundane reason that the 1st Duke owned Clare in Suffolk, for which it was named). And when Royal titles are created, they needed lesser titles as well, and had to fill them from the same sources. In addition, Royal titles have never really been regarded as the same as titles granted to ordinary people - in many ways Kent would have been considered to be more greatly honoured by being a Royal Earldom than by being a Dukedom held by someone outside the Royal Family. (Even today, Ulster, an entire province of Ireland, is only an Earldom held by the Duke of Gloucester.)


 * 2. Similarly to above, can a dukedom be named after a family name or does it have to be a place? Examples being the dukedoms of Windsor, Gordon, Hamilton, Brandon, Schomberg.

It can be a family name, yes. Scottish titles are often both (Gordon and Hamilton, for instance), as families were named after places or vice versa, but Schomberg was only a family name. In addition, Duke of Montagu only refers to a family, as does Duke of Beaufort (and arguably Duke of Wharton).


 * 3. Why did some dukedoms contain two territorial designations, eg Duke of Kent and Strathearn? Is it a "double dukedom"? Did it indicate higher status for the holder?

I suppose it could be called a "double dukedom", yes, and it was fashionable in certain periods for this to be done, especially for members of the Royal Family. But I have to admit it's a bit of a mystery to me what the intention was. Certainly some must have thought that it was more prestigious - the fact that so many such titles were for members of the Royal Family demonstrates that clearly enough, as does the fact that people chose to have such titles when they were clearly not necessary (a Marquess of Buckingham already had a single "Buckingham" title, and so could obviously have become "Duke of Buckingham", but instead became Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, and he must have had some reason for doing that...), but equally the practice has all but died out, and so was perhaps the symptom of a more extravagant age, where having merely a single title was simply not enough!


 * 4. Why did Queen Victoria not create her second son Duke of York? And why instead was it relegated to the younger (indeed not the elder) son of the Prince of Wales?

I have to admit again that I'm not entirely sure. It could be that Her Majesty didn't like the title, and only used it when essentially running out of titles. Or perhaps those people were offered it and didn't want it. Unfortunately many such questions may never be answered, as so many discussions about such things will have taken place in private. (I for one would love to know how discussions ended up with the Earldom of Wessex for Prince Edward.)


 * 5. Why are royal Dukes given courtesy titles when their sons do not use them and are known as Prince?

I would assume both because it's always been usually for higher title-holders to be padded out with lesser titles, and I doubt members of the Royal Family would want to miss out, and because (as with the current Kent and Gloucester lines) there's always the possibility that the line may become non-Royal. That the first factor must play a part is shown by the fact that even Heirs Apparent, whose titles will almost definitely merge with the Crown, have been given reams of titles just to demonstrate Royal favour.


 * 6. Does Prince Charles ever use his titles of Earl of Chester and Carrick? Are there any arms, shields or insignia for these titles as there are for his dukedoms and his principality?

No, they're always subsidiary now to the Principality of Wales and the Dukedom of Rothesay.


 * 7. Is it likely Prince William will be created a Duke upon marriage? Or could he be an earl or a marquess? If so, what title might be used?

The consensus still seems to be that he will be made a Duke. Prince Edward was, I'd imagine, an exception only because he was willing to sit out being an Earl because he wanted eventually to be Duke of Edinburgh, and wasn't going to get two Dukedoms.


 * ''8. Could the Queen create a new dukedom of Connaught or a peerage using the territorial designation of the now Republic of Ireland?

Technically, yes, she could create any title she wanted. (See Earl of Ypres for an extreme example.) Politically, though, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for such a creation to be made without an enormous about of fuss being caused. A territorial designation in the Republic of Ireland would be possible, as are territorial designations referring to anywhere in the world, but it would now have to be coupled with a British place name (like Lady Ryder of Warsaw, "of Warsaw in Poland and of Cavendish in the County of Suffolk").


 * Do peers who hold titles derived from there pre-independence still use these Irish titles in the UK?

Yes. There are lots of examples of this: see Peerage of Ireland, most of the titles in which refer to places in the Republic of Ireland.


 * 9. What happens if a Head of State makes a state visit to Canada or Australia for example, where Elizabeth II is the head of state but not resident? Does the Governor General meet the head of state in her place? Or does the Queen fly over to be hostess?

In most circumstances, the Governor-General would act in her place. She might occasionally go over herself, but would be rushing all over the place if she went every time!


 * 10. Is Prince Charles a prince three times over? (Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince of Scotland)?

Yes, he's a Prince of the United Kingdom, the Prince of Wales, and the Prince of Scotland. (King George IV was at one point a prince four times over, as he was also the Prince Regent.)


 * 11. Why has Cardiff not been used in a peerage as the largest city in Wales?

It's a Barony held by the Marquess of Bute. It was much smaller and less important when that title was created, though.


 * 12. How come the Queen is Queen of some territories that would normally denote as principalities? Equally, how come Wales as a principality nears in size to some European kingdoms?

The "rank" of the ruler of a sovereign territory is nowadays much more determined by historical accident than by size. Wales is a principality because the son of the King of England was created Prince of Wales centuries ago, whereas in modern times new monarchies are generally kingdoms (the ranking between different types of monarchy now being all but obsolete).


 * 13. Why was the title "Crown Prince" never used in England as in European monarchies?

Because England already had "Prince of Wales". "Crown Prince" is merely a placeholder denoting an Heir Apparent where no specific title is provided for by custom. If a title is available, even if only a Dukedom, it is generally used.


 * 14. Finally, surely if the Queen were to create new peerages, she would be running out of territories?! Many, many designations have been used, how is it they decide on new ones?

Don't worry, there are many more places in England than peerages, and there is little danger of running out! And nowadays, it is almost always the new peer who decides, and often they will pick a minor place (their birthplace, home, former constituency, etc.), thus not depleting even the stock of important places. (Just amongst counties in England and Wales, for instance, Dorset, Sussex, Cambridge, Carmarthen, Flint and Cumberland are available at least, and there are probably others I've forgotten.


 * Many many many thanks!--Kenwood2008 (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just hope I've answered your queries well enough! Feel free to come back at me if you have any more questions, or would like me to clarify something. Proteus (Talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)