|
|
 | | From: | Xerxes | | Subject: | Dukedoms was Linlithgow Dukedom | | Date: | 12 Jan 2005 23:35:53 -0800 |
|
|
 | Guy Stair Sainty (guy@sainty.org) says
>cj.buyers@virgin.net wrote:
>> No he wasn't. He received the KG, to add to his KT. Perhaps the
>> combination was thought rarer than a dukedom. Becides which, his
>> viceroyalty was not seen as a success.
>
>Also, in the twentieth century British monarchs held it as a matter
of policy
>that dukedoms should not be granted outside of the Royal Family
(Elizabeth II's
>reluctance to grant Churchill a dukedom - except when sure he would
decline -
>being an instance of this).
>
A mistaken view, IMO. The belief held by previous sovereigns and
indeed by
Churchill himself that a duke should be able to sustain the position
financially is a sound one; one may see today that of the present
dukess
they are divided into the very wealthy, who have assumed significant
public
roles as philantropists and patrons of local events (Westminster,
Devonshire,
Buccleuch, Rutland, Bedford, Roxburgh, Norfolk, Beaufort, Sutherland,
Wellington, Richmond, Grafton, Marlborough, Norhtumberland, Fife, and
Abercorn);
comfortably off dukes (Somerset, Argyll, Atholl) and relatively poorly
off or
impoverished ones (Manchester, Leinster, Saint Albans, Hamilton, and
Montrose).
It is quite obvious that the future Dukes of Kent and Gloucester will
be in the
latter category and in 2 to 3 generations these
no longer very royal dukes will be living in quite modest
circumstances, barring
some unexpectedly advantageous marriage or hugely successful business
career. Dukes are privileged by their title and position; but they
need the
financial means to sustain it and the responsibilities expected of
them.
Obviously they are not going to get this from the public purse. There
is a
good argument IMO for expiring royal dukedoms, after three
generatiuons perhaps
for them to keep the earldom only. Meanwhile there is an equally good
argument
for the Crown continuing to confer hereditary titles, and indeed
the occasional dukedom - although the Marquess of Linlithgow was
probably
not the best candidate for this by the 20th century very rare honour
(much more
frequently given in the 18th).
Was there not one viceroy of India who was a marquis and was offered a
dukedom in the 19th century but declined the honour as he felt he did
not have the means to support himself in the style society expected
dukes to live?
Was the Marquis Curzon ever close to getting a Dukedom?
|
|
| | From: | Stan Brown | | Subject: | Re: Dukedoms was Linlithgow Dukedom | | Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:30:22 -0500 |
|
|
| "Xerxes" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
>There is a good argument IMO for expiring royal dukedoms, after three
>generations perhaps for them to keep the earldom only.
That seems to happen pretty much automatically anyway. For some
reason, junior lines of the UK royal house don't seem to accumulate
many generations in the male line.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
|
|
|
