This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Courtesy titles for son/grandson of Duke of Edinburgh
I don't think "Earl of Merioneth" and "Lord Greenwich" should be included in this list. They have never been used as courtesy titles for descendants of the Duke of Edinburgh, and it's extremely unlikely that they ever will. Even if a future Duke of Edinburgh did have an heir-apparent who was not a Prince of the United Kingdom, then there's still no certainty that he'd be known as Earl of Merioneth. There are lots of examples where courtesy peers use a title other than the next senior one (e.g. the heir-apparent to the Duke of Buccleuch is called Earl of Dalkeith, not Marquess of Dumfresshire; the heir-apparent to the Earl of Kintore is called Lord Inverurie, not Viscount Stonehaven) or even a totally made-up title (like Viscount Corry or Earl of Glamorgan). Wikipedia is not a place for speculation - even informed speculation - as to what the Duke of Edinburgh's heirs might be called in the remote contingency that the Queen, the Prince of Wales and Prince William all predecease the present Duke, the Crown passing to William's daughter and leaving Prince Harry as Duke of Edinburgh with his otherwise untitled son as heir-apparent to the Dukedom. Opera hat (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy for it to go - as the titles have yet to be and in all probability will never be used but I think your logic flawed. The vast majority of all Cts are exactly as expected; the exceptions are rare indeed and usually accounted for by some special historic circumstance. Taking modern creations, royal or otherwise and the use of non standard forms barely exist. Extending your logic, every title would fail your test as any peer could decide to use a different new CT. Some titles vary their form from generation to another, some with premature deaths others on pure whim. As we can never be sure we have to make assumptions. As to Harry, you have misread the LP of 1917. His children would, at present, be styled as the younger sons/d of a duke. AllsoulsDay (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with November 2. Perhaps it would be appropriate, in this case, to mark appropriate royal dukedoms with a footnote explaining that their courtesy titles are not currently in use among descendants already bearing a princely or other title. Such notes could be used for other situations as well, such as when a certain title is not used by courtesy (e.g. Duke of Westminster and Marquess of Westminster) or if an heir is already a substantive peer (I'm thinking of how the Duke of Fife was during his father's lifetime also heir to the Earldom of Southesk but from 1959 had no need to use a courtesy title; I don't know if any such examples exist nowadays). Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If the Earl of Lincoln had a son, would he use the courtesy title of "Lord Fiennes-Clinton" just as the son of the Earl of Guilford (in the absence of a secondary title) uses the courtesy title of "Lord North", North being the family name?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No. There's a difference between Master as a courtesy title and Master as a substantive title. Heirs-presumptive to peers are actually Masters, so it is not a courtesy title (though they may bear one as well, e.g. the Master of Sutherland is courtesy Lord Strathnaver). The Masters who should appear on this list are heirs-apparent to courtesy peers - and as their fathers are only peers by courtesy, they are likewise Masters by courtesy (e.g. the Master of Strathnaver). Opera hat (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I do understand: thus the Master title is really a substantive title normally worn by the heir to the Scottish peerage title. But actually only used as substantive title when they haven't received a courtesy peerage title. But it can also be used as courtesy title for the heir to a courtesy peerage. But when and how is the latter the case? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, like the example I just gave. Lord Strathnaver has a son, who is known as Master of Strathnaver. But Lord Strathnaver isn't a peer: he's the eldest son of the Countess of Sutherland. His title of Lord Strathnaver is therefore a courtesy title, and the Master of Strathnaver's title, deriving from his father's courtesy title rather than from an actual peerage, is also a courtesy title. Opera hat (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the third heir of a Duke of Leinster really called Viscount Leinster? Such a duplication would be unique (in the British peerages) so far as I know. —Tamfang (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge no. These duplications are generally avoided. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It is my understanding that this is the case. Obviously, it is not often that the case arises. john k (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That which is the case? That Leinster is unique, or not? "The case arises", if by that you mean a subsidiary title exists which matches the higher title, very very often. —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
In the Leinster case more than once even. The substantive titles are: Leinster (Duke), Kildare (Marquess), Kildare (Earl), Offaly (Earl), Leinster (Viscount), Offaly (Baron), Kildare (Baron). I removed the entry for the great grandson because they seem to be out of titles after Earl of Offaly. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It rarely arises that there is a great-grandson who is heir to the Dukedom of Leinster. My understanding, however, was that "Viscount Leinster" has in fact been used for the great grandson of a Duke of Leinster. So far as I can tell, the situation has arisen only once. From 1974 to 1976 Edward, the 7th Duke (b. 1892), was the incumbent. His eldest son, Gerald (b. 1914) was known as Marquess of Kildare. Gerald's eldest son, Maurice (b. 1948), the current duke, was called Earl of Offaly. And Maurice's only son was Thomas FitzGerald (b. 1974). The 7th Duke died in 1976, at which point Thomas became known as Earl of Offaly, which was his courtesy title until his premature death in 1997 in a car accident. Here is an old alt.talk.royalty post in which someone claims that Thomas was, in fact, known as Viscount Leinster until his great-grandfather's death when he was two. The same is claimed in this post, where it's suggested that this fact can be discovered in the 1976 Debrett's. Anyone want to check? john k (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)